Supreme Court declines chance to overturn precedent limiting protests outside abortion clinics
Two conservative justices – Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito – said they would have heard the cases.
The precedent at issue, Thomas wrote in a brief opinion, 'has been seriously undermined, if not completely eroded, and our refusal to provide clarity is an abdication of our judicial duty.'
Protected zones around clinics have been a legal issue for decades, but the fight was reanimated by the 2022 decision overturning Roe v. Wade. Most significantly, the conservative majority signaled in that opinion that it has deep reservations with the 24-year-old precedent allowing cities to create the protest-free areas.
In one case, a Missouri non-profit called Coalition Life challenged an ordinance in a Southern Illinois city, Carbondale, that bars people from coming within eight feet of a person entering a health care-facility to engage in 'protest, education, or counseling.' Coalition Life organizes 'sidewalk counselors' outside abortion clinics.
Carbondale ultimately repealed the ordinance this past summer.
A second appeal came from a sidewalk counselor in New Jersey, Jeryl Turco, who challenged Englewood's eight-foot ban.
Lower courts tossed out both appeals based on a 2000 decision from the Supreme Court that upheld a similar buffer law in Colorado. But the counselors believed the time was right to revisit that precedent following the ruling two years ago in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which overturned Roe. Tucked into that opinion was a line asserting that the high court's abortion precedents had 'distorted First Amendment doctrines.'
That assertion carried a footnote citing the 2000 opinion on Colorado's buffer zones.
Continuing to honor that precedent, the counselors told the Supreme Court, 'is particularly problematic in the wake of Dobbs, as the whole point of that decision was to return the sensitive issue of abortion to the people.'
The counselors said the Supreme Court has been backing away from the 2000 decision anyway. In 2014, a unanimous court invalidated a Massachusetts law creating a 35-foot buffer zone around the entrances of abortion clinics.
City officials defending the zones also pointed to the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade – but for different reasons. They noted the decision had led many states to limit access to the procedure, which had led more patients – and counselors – to convene in states where abortion in clinics remains available.
'After Dobbs led to restrictions on abortion care in surrounding states and two new reproductive health care facilities opened in Carbondale, there was a marked increase in 'acts of intimidation, threats, and interference from individuals protesting abortion access and services,'' the Illinois city said.
Lawyers for Carbondale said some protesters were blocking cars, misrepresenting themselves as medical personnel.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
22 minutes ago
- Fox News
Trump administration wins Supreme Court fight to slash NIH medical research grants tied to DEI, LGBTQ studies
The Trump administration scored a major victory at the Supreme Court Thursday as the justices, in a 5-4 order, cleared his administration to slash more than $783 million in National Institutes of Health (NIH) research grants tied to diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, LGBTQ issues and other hot-button areas. The unsigned majority order said NIH "may proceed with terminating existing grants" while leaving in place a partial block on issuing new directives. The move delivers a political win for Trump's broader push to roll back DEI programs across the federal government. The decision overturns rulings by lower courts that had blocked the cuts. In June, U.S. District Judge Angel Kelley of Massachusetts called the administration's actions "arbitrary and capricious" and said NIH had "failed to provide a reasoned explanation" for cutting grants midstream. The First Circuit upheld her injunction in July, setting up Trump's emergency appeal to the Supreme Court. The Justice Department argued in its July 24 filing that leaving the injunction in place "forces NIH to continue funding projects inconsistent with agency priorities" and warned the order "intrudes on NIH's core discretion to decide how best to allocate limited research funds." Opponents framed the cuts as ideological. The American Public Health Association warned that "halting these grants would devastate biomedical research across the country, disrupting clinical trials and delaying urgently needed discoveries" and said "the administration has offered no scientific basis for these cancellations — only ideology." A coalition of Democrat-led states led by Massachusetts argued that "patients should not be collateral damage in a political fight." News outlets stressed the stakes of Thursday's decision. The Associated Press described the ruling as the Court letting Trump cut $783 million in research funding "in an anti-DEI push." Reuters reported that "the Supreme Court in a 5–4 order cleared the way for the Trump administration to cut diversity-related NIH grants, though it left in place part of the ruling blocking new restrictions." Research groups warned of the cuts' fallout. The Association of American Universities said the cuts "risk chilling scientific inquiry by discouraging researchers from pursuing politically sensitive topics." Scientists cautioned the decision could derail progress on diseases such as cancer and Alzheimer's, even as the broader legal fight continues in the First Circuit and may return to the Supreme Court.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court gives Trump administration emergency relief in NIH grants appeal
The Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration in its effort to cut research grants for the National Institutes of Health, as the administration targets diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, or DEI. On Thursday, the high court lifted a lower court judge's order that had vacated the government's termination of various research-related grants. Several justices wrote separate opinions in the divided case, with Chief Justice John Roberts siding with the court's three Democratic appointees, who said they wanted to fully deny the government's emergency application. Justice Amy Coney Barrett was in the middle of the court, only partially agreeing with the administration, while Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh voted to fully side with the administration. Barrett noted that a majority of the court believes the district court likely lacked jurisdiction to hear challenges to grant terminations, which she said belong in a different specialized court, the Court of Federal Claims. But she added that the administration isn't entitled to emergency relief when it comes to the district court's ruling against guidance documents on the government policy. 'Of course, it [the government] remains free to challenge the District Court's vacatur of the guidance before the First Circuit,' the Trump appointee wrote, referring to the continuing lower court litigation in the case that could reach the justices again in the future. The administration went to the justices after a federal appeals court declined to halt the district judge's ruling against the grant terminations. U.S. District Judge William Young had observed that President Donald Trump's executive action didn't 'even attempt to define DEI, but instead set it up as some sort of boogeyman.' The Reagan appointee in Massachusetts wrote that without such a definition, the government had 'embarked on a fool's errand resulting in arbitrary and capricious action.' Applying to the high court for emergency relief, Trump Solicitor General John Sauer cast the lower court loss as the latest instance of out-of-control judges around the country who have required his office to seek relief from the justices in Washington, D.C. 'This application presents a particularly clear case for this Court to intervene and stop errant district courts from continuing to disregard this Court's rulings,' Sauer wrote in his application, citing recent administration wins on executive power. He also cited the Supreme Court's 5-4 shadow docket ruling in April, in Department of Education v. California, in which the court sided with the administration in a case over DEI-related education grants. Sauer said the same result was warranted here. Opposing his application, a group of plaintiff states accused the government of 'spin[ning] a tale' of lower court defiance that 'bears little resemblance to reality.' They called the judge's ruling 'run of the mill' and said '[t]he only unlawful decisions here are the federal government's,' adding that 'the only urgency is that manufactured by NIH in its haste to implement its unprecedented and unreasoned policies.' A separate opposition filing from the American Public Health Association and other groups told the justices that even temporary relief for the government would invalidate important health projects that were already paid for by Congress, 'inflicting incalculable losses in public health and human life because of delays in bringing the fruits of Plaintiffs' research to Americans who desperately await clinical advancements.' An amicus brief from nonprofit biological and biomedical societies highlighted what they called 'the irreparable injuries already rippling across the scientific community due to the mass termination of NIH grants — particularly those at issue here.' Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in the Trump administration's legal cases. This article was originally published on
Vox
an hour ago
- Vox
The Supreme Court hands down some incomprehensible gobbledygook about canceled federal grants
is a senior correspondent at Vox, where he focuses on the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and the decline of liberal democracy in the United States. He received a JD from Duke University and is the author of two books on the Supreme Court. Late Thursday afternoon, the Supreme Court handed down an incomprehensible order concerning the Trump administration's decision to cancel numerous public health grants. The array of six opinions in National Institutes of Health v. American Public Health Association is so labyrinthine that any judge who attempts to parse it risks being devoured by a minotaur. As Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson writes in a partial dissent, the decision is 'Calvinball jurisprudence,' which appears to be designed to ensure that 'this Administration always wins.' SCOTUS, Explained Get the latest developments on the US Supreme Court from senior correspondent Ian Millhiser. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. The case involves thousands of NIH grants that the Trump administration abruptly canceled which, according to Jackson, involve 'research into suicide risk and prevention, HIV transmission, Alzheimer's, and cardiovascular disease,' among other things. The grants were canceled in response to executive orders prohibiting grants relating to DEI, gender identity, or Covid-19. A federal district court ruled that this policy was unlawful — 'arbitrary and capricious' in the language of federal administrative law — in part because the executive orders gave NIH officials no precise guidance on which grants should be canceled. As Jackson summarized the district court's reasoning, ''DEI'—the central concept the executive orders aimed to extirpate—was nowhere defined,' leaving NIH officials 'to arrive at whatever conclusion [they] wishe[d]' regarding which grants should be terminated. According to Jackson, 'the court found, as a factual matter, 'an unmistakable pattern of discrimination against women's health issues' and 'pervasive racial discrimination'—indeed, 'palpable' racial discrimination of a sort the judge had 'never seen' in 40 years on the bench.' The question of whether this judge was correct to deem the Trump administration's policy arbitrary and capricious, however, was not before the Supreme Court. Instead, the case hinged on a jurisdictional dispute. Which court is supposed to hear this case? As a general rule, lawsuits alleging that a federal policy is illegal are heard by federal district courts, while suits alleging that the federal government breached a contract are heard by the Court of Federal Claims. In NIH, the plaintiffs alleged that the broader policy that led to their grants being canceled was illegal, so that suggests that this case should have been brought in a district court (which is where it was actually brought). But the case also bears some superficial similarity to a breach of contract suit, because it involved the government's decision not to pay money that it had previously agreed to pay. Four justices — the three Democrats plus Chief Justice John Roberts — concluded that these plaintiffs were right to bring their suit in the district court. Four other justices — Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh — concluded that the case must be brought in the Court of Claims. That would mean that these plaintiffs would have to start over again in the claims court, and possibly that they would have to bring individual suits seeking to reinstate individual grants, rather than seeking a broad order attacking the entire grant cancellation policy. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, meanwhile, cast the deciding vote. She claims that this suit must be split between the two courts. In her view, the district court was the proper venue for the plaintiffs to argue that the overall policy is illegal, but the claims court is the proper venue for them to actually seek the money they would have received if the grants are not canceled. If that sounds confusing, it gets worse. Barrett's opinion states that federal law bars the claims court from hearing 'claims pending in other courts when those claims arise from 'substantially the same operative facts.'' So these plaintiffs likely must wait until after they have fully litigated the question of whether the Trump administration's broad policy is illegal in district court, before they can actually try to get any money in the claims court. That could take years, especially if the first question is heard by the justices again. Moreover, as Jackson warns in her opinion, by the time the first round of litigation is finished, the plaintiffs may be unable to seek relief in the claims court because the statute of limitations for doing so will have expired. The bottom line is that, because there are five votes for the proposition that some parts of this case go to the district court, and also five votes for the proposition that other parts of it go to the claims court, Barrett's opinion controls the case. By the time this mess gets sorted out, it is likely that most — if not all — of the research at issue in NIH will be lost, even if the plaintiffs do prevail. As Jackson writes, without any money to fund their operations, the grant recipients will need to 'euthanize animal subjects, terminate life-saving trials, and close community health clinics.' There are actually even more complexities in this case, but rather than engage in the Sysiphean task of trying to list all of them, I will simply repeat Jackson's summary of what appears to be going on here: In a broader sense, however, today's ruling is of a piece with this Court's recent tendencies. '[R]ight when the Judiciary should be hunkering down to do all it can to preserve the law's constraints,' the Court opts instead to make vindicating the rule of law and preventing manifestly injurious Government action as difficult as possible. This is Calvinball jurisprudence with a twist. Calvinball has only one rule: There are no fixed rules. We seem to have two: that one, and this Administration always wins.
