Madsen v. Women's Health Center, Inc.
512 U.S. 753 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A content-neutral injunction that restricts First Amendment freedoms is constitutional only if it burdens no more speech than necessary to serve a significant government interest, a standard more stringent than that applied to time, place, and manner statutes.
Facts:
- Respondents, including Women's Health Center, Inc., operated abortion clinics in central Florida.
- Petitioners, including Judy Madsen and Operation Rescue, engaged in protest activities at the Aware Woman Center for Choice clinic in Melbourne, Florida.
- Protesters congregated on the public street (Dixie Way) leading to the clinic, marched in front of the clinic’s driveways, and approached vehicles to distribute literature.
- The protests involved between a handful and 400 people, with noise ranging from singing and chanting to the use of loudspeakers and bullhorns.
- The protests caused patients to experience heightened anxiety and hypertension, increasing medical risks associated with their procedures.
- Petitioners also picketed in front of clinic employees’ residences, sometimes confronting their minor children who were home alone.
Procedural Posture:
- In September 1992, a Florida state trial court issued a permanent injunction against the petitioners, prohibiting them from blocking access to the clinic or physically abusing persons there.
- Six months later, the respondents (clinics) filed a motion in the same trial court to broaden the injunction, arguing the original order was insufficient.
- The Florida state trial court granted the motion and issued an amended, broader permanent injunction containing the challenged restrictions.
- Petitioners appealed to the Florida Supreme Court, which upheld the amended injunction as constitutional.
- In a separate federal case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit struck down the same injunction as unconstitutional.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the conflict between the Florida Supreme Court and the Eleventh Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state court injunction imposing various restrictions on anti-abortion protesters—including a 36-foot buffer zone around a clinic, noise limitations, a ban on 'images observable,' a 300-foot no-approach zone, and a 300-foot buffer zone around staff residences—violate the First Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Rehnquist
Yes, in part, and No, in part. A content-neutral injunction restricting speech must burden no more speech than necessary to serve significant government interests. While some provisions of the injunction meet this heightened standard, others are unconstitutionally broad. The injunction is content-neutral because it was not issued due to the content of the protesters' message, but because their conduct violated a prior court order. However, injunctions carry greater risks of censorship than generally applicable statutes and thus require a more rigorous standard than the 'narrowly tailored' test. Applying this standard, the Court found: (1) The 36-foot buffer zone around the clinic's entrances and driveway is constitutional because it is necessary to ensure ingress and egress, particularly given the failure of a prior, less restrictive injunction. (2) The 36-foot buffer zone applied to private property is unconstitutional because it is not necessary to protect access. (3) The limited noise restrictions are constitutional to protect patient health. (4) The ban on 'images observable' is unconstitutional because it is overbroad; the clinic can simply pull its curtains. (5) The 300-foot 'no-approach' zone is unconstitutional because prohibiting all uninvited, peaceful approaches burdens more speech than necessary to prevent intimidation. (6) The 300-foot buffer zone around staff residences is unconstitutional as it is overly broad and not sufficiently justified.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice Stevens
Yes, in part, and No, in part. Injunctive relief against proven wrongdoers should be judged by a more lenient standard than legislation applicable to the general public. While I join the Court in rejecting the petitioners' content-based and 'in concert' challenges, I dissent from the Court's invalidation of the 300-foot no-approach zone. This provision rightfully prohibits a species of conduct—physically approaching, stalking, and shadowing patients—rather than speech, and is a necessary protection for a captive and vulnerable audience seeking medical care. I also believe the Court should not have reached the time, place, and manner challenges to the 36-foot buffer zone's scope or the noise and image restrictions, as they were not properly presented in the questions on which certiorari was granted.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice Scalia
Yes. The entire injunction is an unconstitutional, viewpoint-based restriction on speech that should be subject to strict scrutiny. The injunction is a classic prior restraint and is targeted specifically at those with a pro-life viewpoint, as confirmed by the issuing judge's own statements. Even if considered content-neutral, the Court's new 'intermediate-intermediate scrutiny' standard is baseless in precedent. Furthermore, there is no evidence in the record that the protesters violated the original, narrower injunction, which prohibited only intentional obstruction, not the incidental slowing of traffic caused by peaceful picketing. The majority's approval of any part of this injunction is a profound departure from First Amendment jurisprudence, driven by the context of abortion.
Analysis:
This case is significant for establishing a new, heightened standard of review for content-neutral injunctions that restrict speech. The Court created a test more stringent than the 'narrowly tailored' standard used for general time, place, and manner statutes, holding that an injunction must 'burden no more speech than necessary.' This reflects the judiciary's concern that injunctions, which target specific groups, pose a greater risk of censorship and discriminatory application than laws of general applicability. The decision provides a framework for courts to scrutinize injunctions on a provision-by-provision basis, carefully balancing significant government interests like public safety and access to healthcare against First Amendment rights.
Unlock the full brief for Madsen v. Women's Health Center, Inc.