Murray v. Lawson
134 N.J. 1, 629 A.2d 13 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A court may issue a content-neutral injunction creating a buffer zone around a private residence to protect the significant government interest in residential privacy from targeted picketing, provided the injunction is narrowly tailored and leaves open ample alternative channels for communication.
Facts:
- Dr. Elrick Murray and Dr. Daryl Boffard are physicians who perform abortions as part of their medical practices.
- Defendant Jay Lawson, an anti-abortion protestor, discovered Dr. Murray's home address and informed him and his family that he would be the target of protests.
- Subsequently, dozens of protestors, including Lawson, demonstrated on the public sidewalk in front of the Murray family's suburban home. They carried signs calling Dr. Murray a "pre-born baby exterminator" and depicting a decapitated infant.
- Protestors also spoke to Murray's neighbors, including a teenager, asking if they knew a "killer" lived in the neighborhood.
- In a separate incident, approximately twenty protestors gathered in front of Dr. Boffard's home on a quiet cul-de-sac where his children played.
- These protestors carried signs stating "Dr. Daryl Boffard Kills Babies" and showing images of a mutilated fetus and bloody fetal parts.
- The protestors in the Boffard case told Mrs. Boffard and a teenage neighbor that Dr. Boffard was a "murderer."
- Both the Murray and Boffard families experienced significant emotional distress and disruption of their home lives due to the targeted protests.
Procedural Posture:
- In Murray v. Lawson, the Murrays sued the protestors in the Chancery Division, which entered a permanent injunction prohibiting picketing within 300 feet of their residence.
- The defendants (appellants) in Murray appealed to the Appellate Division, which affirmed the Chancery Division's injunction.
- In Boffard v. Barnes, the Boffards sued protestors in the Chancery Division, which entered a permanent injunction forbidding picketing 'within the immediate vicinity' of their residence.
- The defendants (appellants) in Boffard appealed to the Appellate Division, which upheld the locational restriction but struck down other content-based portions of the injunction.
- The defendants in both cases petitioned the Supreme Court of New Jersey, which granted certification and consolidated the cases.
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 court-ordered injunction that prohibits targeted, focused picketing within a specified distance of an abortion provider's private residence violate the protestors' First Amendment free speech rights?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Clifford
No. A court-ordered injunction that prohibits targeted, focused picketing within a specified distance of an abortion provider's private residence does not violate the protestors' First Amendment free speech rights. Such an injunction serves as a permissible time, place, and manner restriction on speech. The court reasoned that the injunctions were content-neutral because they were justified by the need to protect residential privacy, not by disagreement with the protestors' message. The government's interest in protecting the tranquility and privacy of the home is significant, as a home is a sanctuary where residents should not be made captive listeners to unwanted speech. Citing Frisby v. Schultz, the court held that a complete ban on focused residential picketing is narrowly tailored because this type of picketing is inherently intrusive and directed at the household, not the general public. The court found that a 300-foot buffer zone in the Murray case was an appropriate spatial restriction, and while the ban in Boffard was permissible, its scope of "immediate vicinity" was too vague and required clarification on remand. Finally, the injunctions left open ample alternative channels for communication, as defendants could still protest at the doctors' offices, at clinics, or on other public streets.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle that the common-law right to residential privacy is a significant government interest capable of justifying restrictions on First Amendment expression. It applies the Supreme Court's reasoning from Frisby v. Schultz, which upheld a municipal ordinance against residential picketing, to the context of a court-issued injunction tailored to a specific dispute. The case provides a clear precedent for trial courts to use their equitable power to create speech-free zones around private homes to protect residents from becoming a 'captive audience' to targeted protests. This holding is particularly impactful in the context of high-conflict social issues like abortion, establishing a legal tool to shield individuals and their families from targeted harassment at their homes.
Unlock the full brief for Murray v. Lawson