The Supreme Court may soon consider two cases that could dismantle limits on how close protesters can be to people at abortion clinics and other health care facilities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The cases argue that “buffer zones” around clinics and “bubble zones” around the people who visit them violate the First Amendment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cAmericans either have the right to speech or they don\u2019t. We shouldn\u2019t be practicing viewpoint discrimination,\u201d said Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life of America, an anti-abortion group, which filed an amicus brief in one of the cases.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But supporters of the limits say they\u2019re essential. Melissa Fowler, chief program officer for the National Abortion Federation, said that since Roe v. Wade was overturned, protesters have traveled from states where clinics have closed to states where they remain open. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Although there are some protections for clinics, including the federal Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances or FACE Act that makes it a crime to block a facility\u2019s entrance, patients and staff may still face intimidation.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Buffer zones where demonstrations are regulated, she said, allow \u201cpeople to still have an area where they can protest, but it really protects people\u2019s personal safety and autonomy.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n One of the cases the Supreme Court is being asked to consider originates out of Carbondale, a college town in southern Illinois that has become a critical access point for abortion care<\/a> for residents in the South and the Midwest. At least a dozen states across those regions have greatly restricted or banned the procedure<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, three abortion clinics have opened in Carbondale.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Those arrivals also drew abortion opponents. Even if protesters aren\u2019t aggressive, their presence can be stigmatizing or uncomfortable for patients, said Jennifer Pepper, president and CEO of Choices Center for Reproductive Health. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In the past, she said, some wore neon vests and displayed a \u201ccheck-in\u201d sign in an apparent effort to steer patients away.\u201cThey just want to be left alone with their support to receive their health care,\u201d she said of the patients. \u201cThey don\u2019t want to be yelled at.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n In response to what it later described in court documents as a \u201cmarked increase\u201d in intimidation, threats and interference from protesters, the city passed an ordinance<\/a> in January 2023 that drew a 100-foot perimeter from the entrance of <\/strong>health care facilities, in which protesters were prevented from coming within 8 feet of a person without their permission.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Several other cities have sought similar ordinances; a new one\u00a0was just passed<\/a>\u00a0by the Detroit City Council.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Almost immediately, Carbondale\u2019s ordinance was challenged by Coalition Life, which filed suit in May 2023<\/a>, calling the bubble zone unconstitutional. <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cIt had a very serious chilling effect, in regard to our team on the ground not knowing if they would cross a certain line or get arrested,\u201d said Brian Westbrook, the group\u2019s founder and executive director. \u201cIt definitely chilled our speech. It continues to chill our behavior there as well.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Carbondale’s city council later repealed the ordinance<\/a> in July 2024. In court documents, the city said that no one had been charged and existing laws offered sufficient protection.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But Coalition Life is pressing ahead with its lawsuit to prevent the bubble zone from returning, asking the Supreme Court to topple the precedent established in Hill v. Colorado.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n In that 2000 decision, justices ruled that a Colorado law with similar guidelines to Carbondale\u2019s was constitutional. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In response to questions, a spokesperson for the Thomas More Society, the conservative law firm representing Coalition Life, referred NBC News to the firm\u2019s legal filings. <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe need to restore the First Amendment rights Hill eviscerated is all the more pressing after Dobbs,\u201d the petition states<\/a>, referring to Dobbs v. Jackson Women\u2019s Health Organization, the 2022 Supreme Court decision that overturned Roe. It argues that bubble zones are more likely in places that support abortion rights, which is also where the activists have \u201cthe greatest potential for impact.\u201dIn response, lawyers for Carbondale defended Hill\u2019s precedent<\/a> and said that the issue is moot since the ordinance was already repealed. An assistant city attorney declined to comment on the case, citing the ongoing litigation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In New Jersey, a similar case<\/a> has been brought by an anti-abortion activist who is challenging a buffer zone for health care facilities in Englewood, describing the restricted areas outside a local abortion clinic as an \u201cobstacle course\u201d that \u201cplainly \u2018abridges\u2019 the right to free speech.\u201d A spokesperson for the plaintiff\u2019s law firm declined an interview request.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Englewood Mayor Michael Wildes, who supports the buffer zone, said, \u201cIt\u2019s important for us to balance our personal politics with the privacy and dignity of families making choices.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n David Cohen, a law professor at Drexel University Kline School of Law, who has represented clinics in similar cases, said courts have allowed for certain restrictions on protests.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cYou can\u2019t have protests on the steps of the Supreme Court,\u201d he said. \u201cYou can\u2019t have pamphleteers right around a voting booth. You have to let people get in and out of the voting site unencumbered.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n He said justices may be reluctant to take up the Carbondale case, given that the ordinance is no longer in effect, and may be wary of abortion-related cases in general after hearing two in their most recent term. Last year, the justices declined to hear a case challenging a similar ordinance<\/a> in Westchester, New York.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Neither petition has been scheduled to be discussed by the Supreme Court justices. Four justices will have to agree to hear the cases in order for the court to hear oral arguments and to issue a ruling. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The Supreme Court has yet to take on an abortion-related case this term. On Monday, it rejected an appeal from the Biden administration<\/a> to hear a case about a policy meant to ensure patients in Texas could receive emergency abortion care<\/a>. It also turned away a case involving Alabama\u2019s Supreme Court ruling that threatened access to in vitro fertilization in the state.<\/p>\n\n\n\n