The Supreme Court may soon consider two cases that could break limits on how close protesters can be to abortion clinics and other health care facilities.
The lawsuits argue that “buffer zones” around clinics and “bubble zones” around those who visit them violate the First Amendment.
“Americans either have the right to free speech or they don’t. We should not practice viewpoint discrimination,” said Kristen Hawkins, president of Students for Life of America, an anti-abortion group, who filed an amicus brief in the lawsuit.
But supporters of the limits say they are essential. Melissa Fowler, program director for the National Abortion Federation, said that since Roe v. Wade was overruled, protesters traveled from states where clinics are closed to states where they remain open.
While there are some protections for clinics, including the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances, or FACE Act, which makes it a crime to block an entrance to a facility, patients and staff may still be at risk.
Buffer zones where protests are regulated, he said, “allow people to still have an area where they can protest, but it really protects people's personal safety and autonomy.”
One of the cases the Supreme Court is being asked to consider comes from Carbondale, a college town in southern Illinois. Important access point for abortion care For residents of the South and Midwest. There are at least a dozen states in the region The procedure is heavily restricted or prohibited.
Since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, three abortion clinics have opened in Carbondale.
Those who arrived also attracted opponents of abortion. Even if protesters aren't aggressive, their presence can be stigmatizing or uncomfortable for patients, says Jennifer Pepper, president and CEO of the Choice Center for Reproductive Health.
In the past, he said, some wore neon vests and displayed a “check in” sign in an apparent effort to turn away patients.
“They just want to be left alone with your support to get health care,” he said of patients. “They don’t want to scream.”
In response to what it later described in court documents as a “sharp increase” in intimidation, threats and interference by protesters, the city passed an ordinance in January 2023 that draws a 100-foot perimeter from the entrance. Healthcare facilities, where protesters were prohibited from approaching a person without their permission.
Several other cities have requested similar laws; A new one just passed through the Detroit City Council.
Almost immediately, Carbondale's ordinance was challenged by Coalition Life, which filed the case in May 2023, calling bubble zones unconstitutional.
“This had a very serious chilling effect, with our teams on the ground not knowing whether they would cross a certain threshold or be arrested,” said Brian Westbrook, the group's founder and executive director. “It must have cooled our speech. This continues to cool our behavior there as well.”
After the Carbondale City Council Ordinance repealed in July 2024. In court documents, the city states that no one has been charged and that existing laws provide sufficient protections.
But Coalition Life is pressing ahead with its case to avoid a return to the bubble zone, asking the Supreme Court to break precedent. Hill v. Colorado.
In that 2000 decision, the justices ruled that a Colorado law with guidelines similar to Carbondale's was constitutional.
In response to questions, a spokeswoman for the Thomas More Society, the conservative law firm representing Coalition Life, referred NBC News to the firm's legal records.
“The need to restore First Amendment rights is even more pressing after Hill ousted Dobbs”. The petition said, referring to Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, the 2022 Supreme Court ruling that overturned Roe. It argues that bubble zones are most likely to be in places that support abortion rights, where workers have “the greatest potential for influence.”
In response, Carbondale lawyers upheld Hill's precedent and said the issue was moot because the ordinance had already been repealed. An assistant city attorney declined to comment on the case, citing ongoing litigation.
In New Jersey, A Similar Case An anti-abortion activist who is challenging a buffer zone for health care facilities in Englewood described the restricted areas outside local abortion clinics as a “dam course” that “implicitly 'eliminates' the rights of freedom of expression.” A spokeswoman for the plaintiffs' law firm declined an interview request.
Englewood Mayor Michael Wilds, who supports the buffer zone, said, “It is important for us to balance our personal politics with the privacy and dignity of family choices.”
David Cohen, a law professor at Drexel University's Kline School of Law who has represented the clinic in similar cases, said the court allowed some restrictions on the protests.
“You cannot protest the Supreme Court decision,” he said. “You can’t keep flyers in a voting booth. You have to allow people to go in and out of polling places.”
He said the justices may be reluctant to take up the Carbondale case, given that the decree is no longer in effect, and may be wary of abortion-related cases in general after two hearings in their most recent term. Last year, Justice Md refused to hear a case challenging a similar ordinance in Westchester, New York.
None of the petitions has been scheduled for hearing by Supreme Court justices. Four justices must agree to hear cases before the court hears oral arguments and issues a decision.
The Supreme Court has not yet addressed abortion cases during this period. Monday, the Biden administration rejected an appeal hearing a lawsuit over a policy to ensure Texas patients can handle emergency abortions. It also dismissed a case involving an Alabama Supreme Court ruling that threatened access to in vitro fertilization in the state.
