McCullen v. Coakley

McCullen v. Coakley, 573 U.S. 464 (2014), is a United States Supreme Court case. The Court unanimously held that Massachusetts' 35-foot (11 m) fixed abortion facility buffer zones, which barred nonexempt individuals from approaching people without their consent within the zone for the purpose of "passing a leaflet or handbill to, displaying a sign to, or engaging in oral protest, education, or counseling with such person", violated the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as applied to Massachusetts through the Fourteenth Amendment, because it limited free speech too broadly.

McCullen v. Coakley
Argued January 15, 2014
Decided June 26, 2014
Full case nameEleanor McCullen, et al., Petitioners v. Martha Coakley, Attorney General of Massachusetts, et al.
Docket no.12-1168
Citations573 U.S. 464 (more)
134 S. Ct. 2518; 189 L. Ed. 2d 502; 2014 U.S. LEXIS 4499
ArgumentOral argument
Case history
PriorStatute upheld as to facial challenge, 573 F. Supp. 2d 382 (D. Mass. 2008); affirmed, 571 F.3d 167 (1st Cir. 2009); cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 1881 (2010); statute upheld as to as applied challenge, 759 F. Supp. 2d 133 (D. Mass. 2010); affirmed, 708 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2013); cert. granted, 570 U.S. 916 (2013).
Holding
The provisions of the Reproductive Health Care Facilities Act limiting protesting within 35 feet of an abortion clinic violate the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed and remanded.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy
Clarence Thomas · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor · Elena Kagan
Case opinions
MajorityRoberts, joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan
ConcurrenceScalia, joined by Kennedy, Thomas
ConcurrenceAlito
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. I

The buffer zones had been established via amendments to that state's Reproductive Health Care Facilities Act.

Background

In 1994, the US Congress passed the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act. In 2000, Massachusetts passed an analogous state law, the Reproductive Health Care Facilities Act. In 2007, the act was amended to create a 35-foot (11 m) buffer zone around reproductive health care facilities which barred nonexempt individuals from approaching people without their consent within the zone for the purpose of "passing a leaflet or handbill to, displaying a sign to, or engaging in oral protest, education, or counseling with such person".[1]

Exempt individuals included: people leaving and entering the facility, employees and agents of the facility within the scope of their employment, law enforcement and other first responders, and persons using the "public sidewalk or street right-of-way adjacent to such facility solely for the purpose of reaching a destination..." other than the facility.[1]

The amended Act was challenged by protesters of the Planned Parenthood clinics in Boston, Worcester, and Springfield, Massachusetts under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

Opinion of the Court

Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court, writing that, "The buffer zones burden substantially more speech than necessary to achieve Massachusetts' asserted interests."[2] He stated that Massachusetts failed to show that it tried less intrusive alternatives first:

Although respondents claim that Massachusetts 'tried other laws already on the books', they identify not a single prosecution brought under those laws within at least the last 17 years. And while they also claim that the Commonwealth 'tried injunctions', the last injunctions they cite date to the 1990s. In short, the Commonwealth has not shown that it seriously undertook to address the problem with less intrusive tools readily available to it. Nor has it shown that it considered different methods that other jurisdictions have found effective.[3]

The opinion maintained the intermediate scrutiny standard as laid out in Hill v. Colorado for regulations which were clearly targeted toward abortion clinic protests but were not explicitly written as such.[4]

Associate Justice Samuel Alito also filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, stating that the law blatantly discriminates based on viewpoint. He noted that while anti-abortion supporters criticizing the clinic may not enter the zone, clinic counselors or other employees may do so, giving them opportunities to talk to prospective clients.[5]

See also

References
  1. McCullen v. Coakley, 573 U.S. 464 (2014).
  2. McCullen v. Coakley, 573 U. S., (slip op., at 23)
  3. McCullen v. Coakley, 573 U. S., (slip op., at 27)
  4. "What is left of Hill v. Colorado?". SCOTUSblog. 2014-06-26. Retrieved 2021-01-25.
  5. McCullen v. Coakley, 573 U. S., (Alito, concurring slip op., at 2-3)

Further reading


This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.