The Supreme Court has decided not to hear two cases brought by anti-abortion activists challenging laws that restrict demonstrations near clinics. The activists argue that these laws infringe on their First Amendment rights. The majority of the justices did not provide an explanation for rejecting the appeals, but Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented.
The cities in question passed these laws in response to what they deemed as disturbing behavior by protesters outside healthcare clinics. However, anti-abortion activists contend that these measures impede their freedom of speech, especially in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.
One of the cases originated in Carbondale, Illinois, where an ordinance was enacted due to the city becoming a destination for patients from neighboring states with abortion restrictions. The ordinance was promptly challenged in court and has not been enforced. The city argued that the appeal should be dismissed since the ordinance was repealed shortly before reaching the Supreme Court.
The second case involves New Jersey, where an activist claims that a demonstration-free zone established in response to aggressive protesters prevented her from approaching women to dissuade them from having abortions. The city of Englewood maintains that the activist still has the ability to convey her message outside the immediate vicinity of clinic entrances. Lower courts upheld the ordinance, ruling that it does not significantly impede First Amendment rights.
The challengers cited a previous Supreme Court ruling that struck down a Massachusetts law creating buffer zones around clinic doors. They argue that the laws in Illinois and New Jersey should face a similar fate. However, the cities assert that their regulations align with a 2000 Supreme Court decision that upheld a Colorado law establishing a 'bubble zone' around clinics.
Justice Thomas criticized the Court's decision not to hear the Illinois case, contending that the precedent set by the Hill v. Colorado case has been undermined. He argued that the Court's failure to address the issue is a neglect of its judicial responsibility.
