Supreme Court Turns Down Chance To Claw Back Abortion Clinic Buffer Zones
The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to reconsider its prior ruling that upheld buffer zones around abortion clinics, despite opposition from two of the court’s most conservative justices.
In two orders issued Monday, the court refused to hear legal challenges to ordinances in Carbondale, Ill., and Englewood, N.J., which prevent anti-abortion demonstrators from engaging in “sidewalk counseling” outside abortion clinics.
Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito expressed their willingness to review the case, but the matter required the support of at least four justices to move forward, as reported by The Hill.
Both cities’ ordinances were upheld by lower courts based on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Hill v. Colorado in 2000, which determined that a comparable Colorado law did not infringe upon the First Amendment.
Since that ruling, anti-abortion groups have sought to challenge the precedent. Some conservative justices have criticized the decision, arguing that it suppresses free speech. Their concerns were echoed in the Supreme Court’s ruling that overturned constitutional protections for abortion, raising new hope for opponents of Hill.
“Hill has been seriously undermined, if not completely eroded, and our refusal to provide clarity is an abdication of our judicial duty,” Thomas wrote.
“Hill was wrong the day it was decided, and the case for overruling it has only strengthened ever since,” wrote Paul Clement, a prominent conservative Supreme Court attorney and former solicitor general, in his petition challenging Carbondale’s ordinance.
Coalition Life, an anti-abortion organization that conducts “sidewalk counseling” in locations such as Carbondale, was represented by Clement. In its attempt to overturn the 24-year-old precedent, the group secured support from 15 Republican state attorneys general, Alliance Defending Freedom, and other anti-abortion organizations.
In its argument urging the court to reject Coalition Life’s appeal, the city noted that its law had already been upheld.
“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,” wrote Neal Katyal, a veteran Supreme Court advocate who previously served as acting solicitor general under President Barack Obama, on behalf of the city.
In Englewood, resident Jeryl Turco challenged a similar ordinance passed in 2014 that established a buffer zone around an abortion clinic in response to aggressive protesters from a group called Bread of Life.
Turco, who is not affiliated with the group, argued that the ordinance infringed on her First Amendment rights by restricting her ability to engage in sidewalk counseling.
Her attorney, Jay Sekulow, is the chief counsel for the conservative American Center for Law and Justice. Sekulow also represented former President Donald Trump during his first impeachment trial.
Englewood urged the Supreme Court to dismiss the case, contending that 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.”
In a separate matter, the Supreme Court declined to review a challenge from civil and voting rights organizations seeking to overturn Pennsylvania’s requirement that mail-in ballots include a handwritten date on the outer envelope.
The groups contended that the requirement is unnecessary and has resulted in the rejection of valid ballots.
The justices chose not to reconsider a lower court ruling that upheld the provision, rejecting arguments that it violated federal law, which prohibits discarding ballots due to clerical errors that are “not material” to determining voter eligibility.
In 2024, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia ruled that while the date requirement “serves little apparent purpose”—as it is not used to verify the timeliness of a ballot submission—it remains legally valid.
The court concluded that the 1964 Civil Rights Act pertains to voter registration eligibility requirements rather than procedural rules dictating how ballots must be submitted to be counted.