The Supreme Court declined to review two cases on Monday that were brought forward by anti-abortion advocates who contend that laws limiting demonstrations near abortion clinics infringe on their First Amendment rights.
While the majority of justices did not elaborate on their decision to dismiss the appeals, two conservative members of the Court, Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, expressed their dissent.
The legislation in question was enacted by several cities to curb disruptive protests occurring outside healthcare facilities. Nonetheless, anti-abortion activists assert that these regulations violate their rights to free speech, especially in light of the Court’s previous decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, which eliminated the federal right to abortion.
One of the cases originates from Carbondale, Illinois, which has seen an influx of patients from neighboring states where abortion is prohibited. In response, the city adopted an ordinance aimed at controlling protest activities, which has since faced legal challenges and has never been put into effect. City officials argue that the case should be dismissed as the ordinance was repealed shortly before it was taken to the Supreme Court.
The second case comes from New Jersey, where activist Jeryl Turco claims she has been reaching out to women in Englewood for years to dissuade them from seeking abortions. She contests that an 8-foot “demonstration-free zone” enacted by the city in 2014, following reports of aggressive protests, has unjustly restricted her ability to speak with these women.
Officials in Englewood defend that Turco can still convey her message beyond the immediate zone surrounding clinic entrances. Courts have consistently upheld this ordinance, determining it does not significantly infringe on First Amendment rights.
Both appellants highlighted the Supreme Court’s 2014 decision that invalidated a Massachusetts law establishing a 35-foot buffer zone around abortion clinic entrances, arguing that the laws in Illinois and New Jersey should face similar scrutiny.
In contrast, the cities maintain that their regulations align with a separate Supreme Court ruling from 2000, which allowed a Colorado law that created a 100-foot “bubble zone” around clinics, prohibiting individuals from approaching others without consent within an 8-foot range.
Justice Thomas criticized the ruling in the Colorado case, known as Hill v. Colorado, stating it was decided incorrectly. In his dissent regarding the Illinois case, he argued that the court’s handling of the matter was inconsistent with other First Amendment precedents simply because it involved abortion. He lamented that “Hill has been seriously undermined, if not completely eroded,” and suggested that the Court’s failure to clarify matters represents a neglect of its judicial responsibilities.
Supreme Court rejects appeals against regulations distancing abortion protesters from clinics and patients
