data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/45021/45021dab5fc72821e3446cd6c41b23eb7165e97e" alt=""
St. Louis, Mo., Feb 24, 2025 / 13:45 pm (CNA).
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a case challenging what are known as abortion “buffer zone” or “bubble zone” laws, which numerous municipalities have enacted to restrict pro-life ministries outside abortion clinics.
Coalition Life, a St. Louis pro-life group, had last summer petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down the buffer law enacted by Carbondale, Illinois. A federal district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit had earlier ruled against Coalition Life in the case.
Coalition Life had been engaging in peaceful sidewalk counseling of women outside Carbondale’s abortion clinics, offering information about free ultrasounds and pregnancy tests, STD testing, and recommending “options coaching” at a pro-life pregnancy center.
Citing what people associated with the abortion clinic described as “aggressive and misleading tactics,” Carbondale had amended its “disorderly conduct” ordinance to criminalize approaching within eight feet of another person without his or her consent for purposes of protest, education, or counseling within 100 feet of a health care facility.
Coalition Life argued in its petition to the Supreme Court that its case presented an opportunity to correct a flawed precedent that undermines First Amendment rights, adding that Carbondale’s attempt to moot the case by quietly repealing the ordinance highlighted the urgent need for the Supreme Court to act.
Carbondale’s ordinance was modeled after a Colorado law upheld in the Supreme Court’s 2000 Hill v. Colorado decision, a precedent that has faced numerous legal challenges from pro-life advocates over the years over claims that the rule chills the First Amendment right to free speech.
Justice Clarence Thomas dissented from the Feb. 24 decision, contending that the 25-year-old Hill ruling is “defunct” and an “aberration” in First Amendment jurisprudence that has been effectively dismantled by subsequent Supreme Court rulings.
Thomas in his dissent quoted from a previous dissent from the late Justice Antonin Scalia in arguing that buffer zone laws are “obviously and undeniably content-based” and thus should be subjected to “strict scrutiny” to ensure they do not violate the Constitution.
Hill v. Colorado altered the Supreme Court’s First Amendment jurisprudence “precisely to disfavor ‘opponents of abortion’ and their ‘right to persuade women contemplating abortion that what they are doing is wrong,” Thomas argued. He noted that since 2000, lower courts have felt compelled to uphold Hill-like buffer zones around abortion clinics across the country.
The Supreme Court is responsible for resolving that confusion, “and we should have done so here,” he wrote.
“This court has received a number of invitations to make clear that Hill lacks continuing force … I would have taken this opportunity to explicitly overrule Hill. For now, we leave lower courts to sort out what, if anything, is left of Hill’s reasoning, all while constitutional rights hang in the balance,” Thomas wrote.
Brian Westbrook, founder and executive director of Coalition Life, said in a statement Monday that the court’s decision not to hear the case will make it harder for pro-life people across the country to communicate to women that they have options other than abortion.
“As we expand our operations to serve more women across the United States, we will continue to go wherever we are called. Our appeal may have been denied but across this nation, at hundreds of abortion facilities, a different sort of tragic ‘denial’ continues,” Westbrook said.
“Cities and states across America are denying sidewalk counselors and law-abiding citizens their rights to inform women about their options … Women are being denied true choice as they are bullied into the only option that is offered by the abortion advocates.”
In 2023, the Supreme Court declined to hear a similar case, which challenged a “bubble zone” ordinance in Westchester County, New York. The Supreme Court has ruled in the past, however, against very large buffer zones, striking down a 35-foot buffer zone ordinance in Massachusetts in McCullen v. Coakley in 2014.
In 2020, however, the high court turned away challenges to eight-foot and 20-foot buffer zones in Chicago and Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, citing the Hill precedent.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Leave a Reply