SCOTUS won’t hear challenges to abortion center buffer zones

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a pair of cases from pro-life groups that challenged local laws they said infringed on their free speech rights. The laws in Illinois and New Jersey established so-called buffer zones around abortion facilities that prevent people from demonstrating, praying, or offering counseling outside the buildings. The majority of the justices did not provide reasons for declining to hear the cases. But Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito wrote statements about why they dissented with the decision and would liked to have considered the cases.

In regards to the Illinois case, Thomas wrote that a Supreme Court precedent for such laws lacked continuing force and should be overturned. That ruling, 2000’s Hill v. Colorado, upheld a Colorado law that set up a perimeter 100 feet from healthcare clinics and abortion centers—in the zone, people were restricted from approaching each other without permission. Thomas wrote that the decision wrongly treated the problem differently than other First Amendment issues, adding that later rulings undermined Hill v. Colorado. He said the Hill decision changed the Supreme Court’s First Amendment jurisprudence to disfavor pro-life advocates.

Have there been any similar cases? The U.S. Supreme Court in 2014 struck down a 35-foot buffer zone ordinance in Massachusetts. The court has since declined to hear other cases related to such ordinances.

What is the background of the Illinois case? The Thomas More Society in May 2023 filed a lawsuit against the city of Carbondale on behalf of Missouri-based pro-life group Coalition Life. The city in January 2023 enacted an ordinance that created a buffer zone within 100 feet of any medical facility entrance. After the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, women from surrounding states began traveling to the city in southern Illinois for abortions, according to the lawsuit. Coalition Life volunteers had offered prayer, education, and counseling outside abortion facilities for years. Lawyers for the group argued the city ordinance infringed on the volunteers’ free speech because the buffer zones extend onto public sidewalks and also prohibit speech outside all other medical offices in the city. Lower courts ruled against the coalition and Carbondale in July 2024 repealed the ordinance just before the group filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court.

What is the background of the New Jersey case? Jeryl Turco in 2015 filed a lawsuit against the city of Englewood over its eight-foot buffer zone ordinance. Years before the city created the buffer zones, Turco peacefully offered sidewalk counseling outside abortion facilities, according to her lawyers. City officials approved the measure after a series of protests staged by the group Bread of Life outside the Metropolitan Medical Associates abortion facility, Turco’s lawyers with the American Center for Law and Justice wrote. Turco is not a part of the group. A U.S. district judge in 2017 sided with Turco and struck down the law, but the case was reopened in 2019. Another district judge last year dismissed the lawsuit, saying the ordinance was constitutional.

Dig deeper: Read Elizabeth Russell’s report about the first arrest in Scotland under a similar buffer zone law.