Supreme Court Turns Back Challenges to Laws Keeping Abortion Opponents Away

Washington (AP) — The Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Cases

The Supreme Court has refused to hear a pair of cases from abortion opponents who claim that laws limiting anti-abortion demonstrations near clinics violate their First Amendment rights. The majority did not provide an explanation for their decision, as is typical, but two conservative justices, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, disagreed.

Background

The cities where these laws were passed did so to address disturbing behavior from protesters outside of healthcare clinics. However, anti-abortion activists argue that the measures violate their free-speech rights and should be struck down, particularly in light of the court’s recent decision to overturn Roe v. Wade and the nationwide right to abortion.

Cases from Carbondale, Illinois, and Englewood, New Jersey

One case comes from Carbondale, Illinois, which is located near the state’s southern border and passed an ordinance after becoming a destination for patients from nearby states with abortion bans. The measure was quickly challenged in court, and has never been enforced. The city argued that the appeal should be dismissed because the ordinance was repealed shortly before abortion opponents took the case to the Supreme Court.

The other case is from New Jersey, where activist Jeryl Turco says she has approached women in Englewood for years to try to convince them not to have abortions. She claims an 8-foot demonstration-free zone the city passed in 2014 in response to an aggressive group of protesters also kept her from approaching women.

Court Decisions

Lower courts have ultimately upheld the ordinance, finding it is not a major First Amendment burden. Both challengers pointed out that the high court struck down a Massachusetts law creating 35-foot demonstration-free “buffer zones” around clinic doors in 2014, and claimed that the Illinois and New Jersey laws should meet the same fate.

However, cities argue that their rules are in line with a different Supreme Court decision from 2000, when the high court allowed a Colorado law to stand. It barred people from getting within 8 feet of others without permission in a 100-foot “bubble zone” around clinics.

Dissenting Opinions

In a dissent from the decision to decline the Illinois case, Alito said that the court had wrongly decided the 2000 case, known as Hill v. Colorado, and that it had been seriously undermined. “Hill has been seriously undermined, if not completely eroded, and our refusal to provide clarity is an abdication of our judicial duty,” he wrote.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision to turn down these challenges to laws keeping abortion opponents away is likely to be a victory for cities and healthcare providers seeking to maintain a safe environment for patients and staff. While anti-abortion activists argue that these laws restrict their freedom of speech, the court’s decision underscores the importance of balancing individual rights with public safety and the rights of others.

FAQs

* What were the cases about?
+ The cases involved challenges to laws limiting anti-abortion demonstrations near clinics, which were passed to address disturbing behavior from protesters.
* Who disagreed with the decision?
+ Conservative justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas disagreed with the decision to turn down the appeals.
* What was the outcome?
+ The Supreme Court refused to hear the cases, upholding the lower court decisions that found the laws were not a major First Amendment burden.