US Supreme Court rebuffs free speech challenge to abortion clinic buffer zones
The U.S. Supreme Court declined Monday to hear a challenge to the legality of buffer zones used to protect access to abortion clinics and limit harassment of patients in a challenge brought by anti-abortion activists who have argued that their free speech rights were being violated.
The justices turned away appeals by self-described "sidewalk counselors" in New Jersey and Illinois of lower court decisions to throw out their lawsuits that had claimed that the buffer zones violate free speech protections under the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment. The activists had been asking the Supreme Court to overturn its 2000 ruling allowing a Colorado buffer zone law.
Conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said they would have taken up the appeals.
The legality of so-called buffer zones that create a perimeter around abortion facilities, or "floating" zones that put distance between demonstrators and a clinic's patients or staff, has been legally contested for decades. The issue pits free speech rights against concerns over harassment and violence by anti-abortion protesters.
The Supreme Court has a 6-3 conservative majority. In 2022, the court overturned the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that had legalized abortion nationwide, ending its recognition of a woman's constitutional right to terminate her pregnancy. Since that ruling, the issue of buffer zones has regained prominence.
While numerous Republican-led states have banned or severely restricted abortion, some municipalities in states where it remains legal have adopted buffer zone ordinances to limit intimidation and harassment, drawing legal challenges.
In Carbondale, Illinois, a group called Coalition Life that organizes sidewalk counselors sued after the local city council passed such an ordinance in 2023. The measure established a floating 8-foot (2.4 meters) buffer that prevents people from approaching people without their permission in the vicinity of health care facilities, in response to increased threats and disorderly acts at abortion clinics. The ordinance has since been repealed.
It had been modeled after a nearly identical Colorado law that the Supreme Court upheld in 2000 in a case called Hill v. Colorado.
The Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the coalition's case in March 2024, noting that the challengers cannot prevail so long as the Hill ruling remains in place.
Thomas, in his dissent on Monday, criticized the court's Hill decision and expressed regret that the justices had declined "an invitation to set the record straight on Hill's defunct status."
"I would have taken this opportunity to explicitly overrule Hill," Thomas added.
The coalition's lawyers had asked the Supreme Court to overrule the Hill ruling because in places where "anti-abortion views are disfavored," buffer zones are a "ready tool to try to silence those who advance them — and to do so precisely when and where their speech may matter most."
In New Jersey, a sidewalk counselor named Jeryl Turco sued the city of Englewood for adopting a 2014 ordinance that created an 8-foot buffer zone protecting the entrances and driveways of healthcare facilities.
The buffer was set after reports of people associated with an evangelical Christian ministry engaging in aggressive and hostile protests outside Metropolitan Medical Associates, a local abortion clinic. Turco was not associated with the ministry, and said she delivered only peaceful counseling.
The Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals threw out Turco's complaint in January 2024, saying a buffer zone can help protect an individual's health, safety and access to pregnancy-related services, and "does not place a substantial burden on Turco's speech." The 3rd Circuit said its ruling was in line with the Hill precedent.
Alexis McGill Johnson, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said after the Supreme Court acted on Monday that buffer zones "help to create a safer environment for patients, providers and staff."
"No patient should have to encounter threats, intimidation and attacks while seeking health care — and no medical provider or health center staff should be threatened because of their work to deliver abortion care to patients in need," Johnson said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Voice of America
14-03-2025
- Voice of America
US government shutdown likely averted; Democrats fracture
The U.S. Senate is set to pass a stopgap spending bill Friday that would avert a partial government shutdown, although many Democrats are expressing anger over plans by their party's leadership to support the measure. The measure cleared its first Senate hurdle early Friday evening, 62-38. The Republican-controlled House of Representatives passed the bill earlier this week to meet a March 14 deadline to keep the government running. Senate Democrats have fractured over whether to support the short-term continuing resolution (CR) that would fund the government for the next six months, reduce total government spending by about $7 billion from last year's levels and shift money to the military and away from non-defense spending. Much of the party's anger Friday was directed at Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer who announced Thursday night that while he disliked the bill, a shutdown was a "far worse option." Speaking on the Senate floor Friday morning, Schumer said not passing the Republican funding bill would give more power to the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) effort led by Elon Musk, including which agencies would be shut down. "A shutdown would allow DOGE to shift into overdrive," he said. Dozens of House Democrats, who opposed the funding measure in the lower chamber, sent a letter to Schumer on Friday, expressing their "strong opposition" to his plan to vote for the bill. Former Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi urged Senate Democrats to go against their leader. In a Friday statement, she wrote, "America has experienced a Trump shutdown before — but this damaging legislation only makes matters worse." Trump has called on Congress to pass the funding bill and on Friday praised Schumer for supporting it. "Congratulations to Chuck Schumer for doing the right thing — Took 'guts' and courage!" he wrote on his Truth Social platform. Appropriations bills require a 60-vote threshold for passage in the Senate, which means Republicans need to secure at least eight Democratic votes. Schumer previously called for the Senate to pass an earlier version of the CR that Democrats were involved in negotiating. "Funding the government should be a bipartisan effort. But Republicans chose a partisan path, drafting their continuing resolution without any input, any input, from congressional Democrats," Schumer said on the Senate floor late Wednesday. The House passed the short-term spending measure Tuesday by a vote of 217-213. One Democrat voted for the bill and one Republican against it. The chamber went out of session for the rest of the week starting Tuesday afternoon, putting pressure on senators to pass its version of the CR. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson quelled dissent from within his Republican Party to pass the spending measure. He told reporters Tuesday the seven-month continuing resolution was an important step toward implementing Trump's agenda of rooting out government waste and abuse through DOGE. "It allows us to move forward with changing the size and scope of the federal government. There is a seismic shift going on in Washington right now. This is a different moment than we have ever been in. The DOGE work is finding massive amounts of fraud, waste and abuse," Johnson said. "We have a White House that is actually dedicated to getting us back onto a fiscally responsible track." Independent watchdogs and analysts, however, say DOGE is using overly broad claims of fraud to generate support for large-scale cuts to federal programs and offices. Representative Thomas Massie was the lone Republican holdout, despite Trump's post Monday night on Truth Social calling for Massie to lose his seat if he voted against the spending measure. The continuing resolution buys lawmakers time to reach a compromise on Senate and House versions of government spending for the next fiscal year, which begins in October, a key tool for implementing Trump's domestic policy agenda. At question is how and when to enact a proposed extension of the 2017 tax cuts and how to pay down the U.S. deficit without cutting key safety net programs that help American voters.
Voice of America
13-03-2025
- Voice of America
Trump asks Supreme Court to intervene in bid to curb birthright citizenship
Donald Trump took the fight over his attempt to restrict automatic U.S. birthright citizenship to the Supreme Court on Thursday as the Republican president's administration asked the justices to narrow a judicial block imposed on this key element of his hardline approach toward immigration. The Justice Department made the request challenging the scope of three nationwide injunctions issued against Trump's order by federal courts in Washington state, Massachusetts and Maryland. The administration said the injunctions should be scaled back from applying universally and limited to just the plaintiffs that brought the cases and are "actually within the courts' power." "Universal injunctions have reached epidemic proportions since the start of the current administration," the Justice Department said in the filing. "This court should declare that enough is enough before district courts' burgeoning reliance on universal injunctions becomes further entrenched." Trump's order, signed on his first day back in office on Jan. 20, directed federal agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of U.S.-born children who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident. The order was intended to apply starting Feb. 19 but has been blocked nationwide by multiple federal judges. Trump's action has drawn a series of lawsuits from plaintiffs, including 22 Democratic state attorneys general, immigrant rights advocates and expectant mothers. They argue among other things that Trump's order violates a right enshrined in the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment that provides that anyone born in the United States is a citizen. The 14th Amendment's citizenship clause states that all "persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." The administration contends that the 14th Amendment, long understood to confer citizenship to virtually anyone born in the United States, does not extend to immigrants who are in the country illegally or even to immigrants whose presence is lawful but temporary, such as university students or those on work visas. Its request to the justices marks its latest trip to the top U.S. judicial body to defend Trump's actions. The Supreme Court's 6-3 conservative majority includes three justices appointed by Trump during his first term as president. Trump's push to restrict birthright citizenship is part of a broader immigration and border crackdown that includes tasking the U.S. military with aiding border security and issuing a broad ban on asylum. The judges who ruled against Trump's order faulted it as conflicting with the Constitution. An 1898 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in a case called United States v. Wong Kim Ark long has been interpreted as guaranteeing that children born in the United States to noncitizen parents are entitled to American citizenship. Trump's Justice Department has argued that the court's ruling in that case was narrower, applying to children whose parents had a "permanent domicile and residence in the United States."
Voice of America
13-03-2025
- Voice of America
Under what circumstances can a US green card be revoked?
The recent arrest of Palestinian activist and U.S. legal permanent resident Mahmoud Khalil, who played a prominent role in last year's Columbia University protests over the war in Gaza, has prompted questions about the limits of a green card. A green card holder since 2024, Khalil was granted lawful permanent residency status in the U.S. But green card holders can lose their status and face deportation if they violate immigration law. A federal judge on Wednesday extended efforts to halt Khalil's deportation, and the New York resident remains in detention in Louisiana although he has not been charged with any crime. It is not a criminal offense to disagree, even openly, with the U.S. government's policy or actions, and the Bill of Rights protects free speech and the right to assemble. The why Green cards can be revoked, New York-based immigration lawyer Linda Dakin-Grimm told VOA. 'It's not that common, but it also isn't rare. People lose their green cards most often when they're convicted of crimes. … A green card is not citizenship. It's seen as a privilege that you earn, but you can also lose it if you engage in conduct that is contrary to the conditions that green card holders live under,' she said. Examples of crimes that can cause a green card holder can lose their status include aggravated felonies, drug offenses, fraud, or national security concerns such as ties to a terrorist group. Green card holders can also lose their status and lawful permanent residency status for being deemed a threat to national security. If a green card holder is accused of a crime, their criminal case will go through the justice system. But the process to revoke their permanent status takes place in immigration court, where officials must present evidence to justify revoking a green card. The how Revoking a green card is a legal process that starts when the U.S. government determines that an individual has violated immigration laws. The case can come to the government's attention in different ways, either through a routine immigration check, law enforcement investigation, or whistleblower. 'It could theoretically be a whistleblower. Someone who has some information. … Could they call the State Department? Maybe. Could they call the ICE hotline? Maybe,' Dakin-Grimm said. The Department of Homeland Security usually initiates the process. The green card holder will receive a document known as a Notice to Appear in immigration court or, in serious cases, they may be arrested and detained. White House officials said Wednesday that Secretary of State Marco Rubio has the authority to revoke a green card or any visa if an individual's activities in the United States 'would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences' to the country. Rubio has said that Khalil's case is not about free speech. 'No one has a right to a green card, by the way. … If you told us that's what you intended to do when you came to America, we would have never let you in,' Rubio said on Wednesday. 'If you do it once you get in, we're going to revoke it and kick you out.' The authority for the secretary of state to intervene in a case like Khalil's stems from the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. A provision in the law allows the secretary of state to deem a non-citizen deportable if their presence or activities are believed to significantly harm U.S. foreign policy interests. According to Khalil's NTA, Rubio has made that determination. Khalil has been ordered to appear in front of an immigration judge on March 27 at the Lasalle Detention Facility in Louisiana. The court In immigration court, the burden of proof is on the government; it must show the person violated immigration laws. In a case like Khalil's, ICE attorneys will ask for deportation, but they will have to prove he is a threat to national security. The green card holder can also present a defense. In the criminal justice system, if a person cannot afford an attorney, the government must provide a public defender. In immigration court, however, immigrants have the right to their own attorney, but the government does not have to provide one. If immigrants cannot afford an attorney or cannot find one to represent them pro bono, they do will not have access to legal representation. Dakin-Grimm says the process can sometimes go fast, but it is also complex. In the immigration court system, the decision to revoke a green card is an administrative procedure conducted by the Department of Justice, under an office known as the Executive Office for Immigration Review. 'It's kind of like the government is prosecuting a case, and the judge is also the government,' Dakin-Grimm said. The outcome If the immigration judge rules against the green card holder, they can appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). And if the BIA agrees with the government, the green card holder can appeal to a Federal Court of Appeals. Although the case can end up at the U.S. Supreme Court, Dakin-Grimm says that rarely happens, mostly because the Supreme Court has complete discretion over the cases it chooses. 'Most people can't afford to do this kind of legal work themselves. It's just very, very expensive — you know, hundreds of thousands of dollars to take a case from the trial court level all the way to the Supreme Court,' she said. 'But in the immigration space, you tend to see nonprofit agencies, law school clinics, working pro bono, working for free in significant cases like this.' A final decision If the green card is revoked and all appeals fail, the person is usually deported from the U.S. If the appeal is successful, the person keeps their green card and is allowed to stay in the country. Dakin-Grimm said many green card holders think because it is called 'permanent residency,' the status is actually permanent. 'But it's only permanent as long as you follow the rules,' she said. VOA White House correspondent Anita Powell contributed to this report.
