The Supreme Court declined to review two cases brought forth by abortion opponents who argue that regulations limiting demonstrations near abortion clinics infringe upon their First Amendment rights.
The court did not provide a rationale for their refusal, which is not uncommon, though Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas expressed dissenting opinions.
Officials in various cities asserted that these laws were implemented to curb disruptive behavior by protesters congregating outside health care facilities. Conversely, anti-abortion activists contend that these regulations violate their rights to free speech and believe such measures should be invalidated, especially following the overturning of Roe v. Wade, which established a federal right to abortion.
One specific case originates from Carbondale, Illinois, which is situated close to the southern state border and enacted an ordinance after becoming a focal point for patients traveling from neighboring states where abortion is restricted. This ordinance faced immediate legal challenges and has not been enforced to date. The city maintained that the appeal should be dismissed since the ordinance was repealed just before abortion opponents took their case to the Supreme Court.
The second case involves activist Jeryl Turco from New Jersey, who has engaged with women in Englewood, encouraging them to reconsider their choices regarding abortion. She claims that an 8-foot demonstration-free zone established in 2014, following incidents with an aggressive protest group, unjustly restricts her ability to communicate with women.
The city of Englewood argues that Turco is still capable of conveying her message beyond the designated area surrounding clinic entrances. Lower courts have consistently upheld the ordinance, determining that it doesn’t impose a significant infringement on First Amendment rights.
Both challengers reference a 2014 Supreme Court decision that invalidated a Massachusetts statute imposing 35-foot buffer zones around clinic entrances. They assert that the laws in Illinois and New Jersey should receive similar treatment.
Cities, however, maintain that their regulations are consistent with a different Supreme Court ruling from 2000, which upheld a Colorado law that created a 100-foot “bubble zone” prohibiting individuals from getting within 8 feet of others without consent near clinics.
Justice Thomas criticized the ruling in the Colorado case, known as Hill v. Colorado, suggesting that it was incorrectly decided. In a dissent against the court’s decision to reject the Illinois case, he expressed that the court has mishandled the matter by treating it differently due to its connection to abortion. He stated, “Hill has been seriously undermined, if not completely eroded, and our refusal to provide clarity is an abdication of our judicial duty.”
