Latest news with #CoalitionLife
Voice of America
24-02-2025
- Politics
- Voice of America
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 The ordinance has since been repealed.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.
Yahoo
24-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
SCOTUS turns down abortion clinic buffer zone challenge, Thomas slams 'abdication' of duty
The U.S. Supreme Court declined Monday to hear a pro-life challenge against protest restrictions around abortion clinics in Illinois, as activists argued the laws infringe on their First Amendment rights, a decision met with a fiery dissent by Justice Clarence Thomas. The court rejected appeals from Coalition Life, which describes itself as "America's Largest Professional Sidewalk Counseling Organization" in New Jersey and Illinois, which had challenged previous lower court rulings that dismissed their lawsuits. Pro-life activists in the case argued that "buffer zones" – which were established after a previous Supreme Court decision in Colorado to shield patients from harassment – around abortion clinics violate their First Amendment rights to free speech. Supreme Court To Weigh State Ban On Transgender 'Medical Treatments' For Minors Thomas and fellow conservative Justice Samuel Alito dissented, with Thomas arguing SCOTUS should have taken up the case, Coalition Life v. City of Carbondale, Illinois. Alito did not explain his reasoning in writing. The votes of four justices are required to grant a writ of certiorari to bring a case up for review. Read On The Fox News App Thomas said Hill v. Colorado "has been seriously undermined, if not completely eroded, and our refusal to provide clarity is an abdication of our judicial duty." He added that he would've used the Coalition Life case to override the Hill decision. "This case would have allowed us to provide needed clarity to lower courts," Thomas wrote in his dissent. In that case, decided in 2000, the Supreme Court upheld a Colorado statute that prohibited individuals from "knowingly" approaching within eight feet of another person within 100 feet of a healthcare facility entrance, without consent, for purposes such as passing out literature, displaying signs, or engaging in oral protest, education, or counseling. 'The Pendulum Is Swinging': Experts Weigh In On Historic Scotus Transgender Case Amid Oral Arguments The court determined this law was a content-neutral regulation of the time, place and manner of speech, serving the state's interest in protecting individuals entering healthcare facilities from unwanted communication. The decision was 6-3, with Justices Thomas, Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy dissenting. The City of Carbondale, in southern Illinois, saw an uptick in pro-life protests after two clinics opened following the overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022. As such, the city passed ordinances modeled after Colorado's statutes. Urging the court to revisit the Hill precedent, Thomas quoted from an excerpt in Alito's majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Center – the case that overturned Roe v. Wade – where he noted that abortion-related cases on other legal precedents had "distorted First Amendment doctrines." Unpacking The Supreme Court: Why It's Not Just A Maga Stronghold, And How The Justices Really Vote One key case that followed Hill v. Colorado is McCullen v. Coakley, where the Supreme Court ruled in 2014 on a Massachusetts law that established a 35-foot buffer zone around abortion clinics. The high court found that while the state had a legitimate interest in protecting patients and staff from harassment, the law was overly broad, included too much space and infringed on free speech rights. The court struck down the law, distinguishing it from the Hill decision. In 2019, New York upheld a 15-foot buffer zone law outside of clinics, and similar laws have been debated in states like California, Maryland and Washington. Fox News Digital has reached out to Coalition Life for article source: SCOTUS turns down abortion clinic buffer zone challenge, Thomas slams 'abdication' of duty
The Guardian
24-02-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
US supreme court rejects anti-abortion challenges to clinic ‘buffer zones'
In a loss for abortion opponents, the US supreme court on Monday declined to take up two cases involving 'buffer zone' ordinances, which limit protests around abortion clinics and which anti-abortion activists have spent years trying to dismantle. The two cases dealt with buffer zone ordinances passed by the cities of Carbondale, Illinois, and Englewood, New Jersey. In filings to the supreme court, which is dominated 6-3 by conservatives, anti-abortion activists argued that these ordinances ran afoul of the first amendment's guarantees of free speech. They also asked the justices to overturn a 2000 ruling called Hill v Colorado, which upheld a buffer zone law in Colorado. The justices didn't explain why they declined to hear arguments in the cases, but far-right justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas said they would have preferred to take them up. In a dissent outlining his desire to take the Carbondale case, Thomas wrote that he believes Hill 'lacks continuing force', in part due to recent rulings such as Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization, which overturned Roe v Wade and abolished the federal right to abortion. 'I would have taken this opportunity to explicitly overrule Hill,' he wrote. 'Following our repudiation in Dobbs, I do not see what is left of Hill. Yet, lower courts continue to feel bound by it. The court today declines an invitation to set the record straight on Hill's defunct status.' The Illinois case involved a 2023 ordinance that limited people from getting within 8ft of another individual if that individual is within 100ft of a healthcare facility, such as Carbondale's multiple abortion clinics. In the wake of Roe's demise, Carbondale's clinics had become a haven for people fleeing the abortion bans that now blanket much of the US south and midwest. The anti-abortion group Coalition Life sued over the ordinance, vowing to keep up the court fight even after Carbondale repealed it. The 'gamesmanship' over the ordinance, the group argued, only proved that 'Hill will continue to distort both the first amendment and public debates about abortion unless and until it is overruled'. The New Jersey case, meanwhile, was brought by an anti-abortion protester named Jeryl Turco, who asked the justices to strike down a 2014 ordinance. That ordinance bans people from coming within 8ft of the entrances of certain healthcare facilities in Englewood – including abortion clinics – unless they are patients, employees or passersby. Abortion providers and their supporters have spent years defending the idea of buffer zones, pointing to the high rates of violence and harassment that occur in and around US abortion clinics. Over the last half-century, clinics have weathered more than 40 bombings, 200 arsons and 300 burglaries, according to the National Abortion Federation. Anti-abortion activists have also killed at least 11 people. Abortion clinics have also long relied on the protections of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, or Face, a federal law that is meant to penalize people who vandalize reproductive health clinics or who threaten, obstruct or injure the individuals trying to enter those clinics. But after Donald Trump took office in January, his justice department vowed to significantly curtail investigations into alleged Face violations. Trump also pardoned several anti-abortion activists who had been recently convicted for violating Face. In the years since it overturned Roe, the supreme court shown hesitation around newer abortion cases. In 2024, the justices rejected an attempt to limit access to mifepristone, a common abortion pill – but left the door open for a lower court to continue the case. The justices also punted on a case that questioned whether federal law requires hospitals to provide emergency abortions. That case is also continuing in a lower court. Still, the supreme court is set to rule in at least one abortion case this term. In April, the high court will hear arguments in a case over whether South Carolina can cut the abortion provider Planned Parenthood out of Medicaid funding.
CNN
24-02-2025
- Politics
- CNN
Supreme Court declines chance to overturn precedent limiting protests outside abortion clinics
The Supreme Court opted against hearing arguments in a pair of appeals Monday seeking to wipe out protest buffer zones around abortion clinics – a move that, for now, will leave those restrictions in place. 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.
Yahoo
24-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Supreme Court turns down chance to claw back abortion clinic buffer zones
The Supreme Court turned down an opportunity to overturn its precedent permitting buffer zones around abortion clinics over the objections of two of the court's leading conservatives. In two orders issued Monday, the court declined to take up challenges to ordinances in Carbondale, Ill., and Englewood, N.J., that ban anti-abortion activists from approaching someone entering an abortion clinic, sometimes dubbed 'sidewalk counseling.' Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito both indicated they would've taken up the case, but it requires four justices' votes to do so. Lower courts upheld both cities' ordinances under the Supreme Court's 2000 decision in Hill v. Colorado, which found a similar Colorado law did not violate the First Amendment. Anti-abortion groups have since looked to eviscerate the precedent. Their hopes have been bolstered by several conservative justices who recently criticized the decision as an aberration of free speech doctrine — including in the Supreme Court's opinion overturning constitutional abortion protections. 'Hill has been seriously undermined, if not completely eroded, and our refusal to provide clarity is an abdication of our judicial duty,' Thomas wrote. Alito, meanwhile, did not author a written dissent. The court has declined to revisit Hill before, including in a similar case in 2023. 'Hill was wrong the day it was decided, and the case for overruling it has only strengthened ever since,' Paul Clement, a veteran conservative Supreme Court attorney who previously served as solicitor general, wrote in the petition challenging Carbondale's ordinance. Clement represented Coalition Life, an anti-abortion group that organizes 'sidewalk counseling' in places like Carbondale. The group's request to overturn the 24-year-old precedent was backed by 15 Republican state attorneys general, Alliance Defending Freedom and other anti-abortion groups. The city noted its ordinance has been repealed as it urged the court to turn down Coalition Life's appeal. 'Petitioner wants to fast-track a request that this Court overturn Hill just as it overturned Roe v. Wade. This Court should deny that request. This case is a far cry from an ideal—or even passable—vehicle for revisiting Hill,' Neal Katyal, another veteran Supreme Court advocate, who served as acting solicitor general under former President Obama, wrote on behalf of the city. In Englewood, resident Jeryl Turco challenged a similar ordinance the city enacted in 2014 establishing a buffer zone around a local abortion clinic in response to aggressive protestors from a group called Bread of Life. Turco is not affiliated with the group and said the ordinance impermissibly violated her First Amendment rights to be a sidewalk counselor. She was represented by Jay Sekulow, lead counsel at the conservative legal organization American Center for Law and Justice. Sekulow was one of President Trump's attorneys at his first impeachment trial. Englewood urged the court to turn away the case, saying it 'is extremely fact-sensitive and involves material credibility issues that the District Court has resolved. Also, the facts of this case are unique because of Petitioner's method of sidewalk counseling.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
