Saint John's Church in the Wilderness v. Scott
194 P.3d 475, 2008 WL 3877826, 2008 Colo. App. LEXIS 1422 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A content-neutral injunction restricting First Amendment speech is permissible only if its provisions burden no more speech than necessary to serve a significant government interest. Each time, place, and manner restriction must be narrowly tailored to address a specific, demonstrated harm.
Facts:
- On Palm Sunday, March 20, 2005, St. John's Church in the Wilderness held services that included an outdoor liturgy and a procession on the church lawn.
- The Church had obtained a parade permit that restricted public use of the sidewalk to accommodate its processions.
- Kenneth Tyler Scott and Clifton Powell led a demonstration of five to six people near the Church to protest abortion and homosexuality.
- During the outdoor services and processions, at least one demonstrator shouted in a manner described as distracting, unpleasant, and unsettling to parishioners.
- The demonstrators displayed signs, some of which included graphic depictions of aborted fetuses, which were visible to the congregation, including approximately 200 children.
- Scott's shouting was so loud that it substantially interfered with the service and prevented at least one parishioner from being able to sing hymns during the procession.
Procedural Posture:
- St. John's Church and two named parishioners (plaintiffs) sued Kenneth Tyler Scott and Clifton Powell (defendants) in a Colorado trial court for private nuisance and conspiracy.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the Church on the private nuisance claim against Scott.
- Following a bench trial on the remaining claims, the court entered judgment in favor of the Church on the private nuisance claim against Powell and on the conspiracy claims against both Scott and Powell.
- The trial court also issued a permanent injunction restricting Scott's and Powell's protest activities near the church.
- Scott and Powell (appellants) appealed the judgments and the injunction to the Colorado Court of Appeals (an intermediate appellate court), where St. John's and its parishioners are the appellees.
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 permanent injunction that establishes time, place, and manner restrictions on demonstrations outside a church violate the protestors' First Amendment free speech rights?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Carparelli
Yes, in part, and no, in part. An injunction's content-neutral provisions are constitutional only if they are narrowly tailored to burden no more speech than necessary to serve a significant government interest. Here, the time restrictions and prohibitions on obstructing access were narrowly tailored, but the complete ban on entering church property and the geographic scope of the buffer zone were not supported by sufficient findings. The court determined the injunction was content-neutral because its purposes were to protect parishioners' ability to worship, shield children from gruesome images, and protect personal privacy, rather than to suppress the protestors' message. Applying the test from Madsen v. Women's Health Center, Inc., the court analyzed each provision. The time restrictions were upheld as narrowly tailored because they only applied during and immediately around worship services. The prohibition on obstructing access was also upheld as it targeted non-expressive conduct that would harm the ability to worship. However, the ban on entering church property was vacated for lack of evidence that the protestors had ever entered the property or that their mere presence would cause irreparable harm. The court found the trial record insufficient to determine whether the place and manner restrictions (the 'buffer zone') were narrowly tailored, and therefore remanded for the trial court to make specific findings for each segment of the zone to justify its necessity.
Analysis:
This case provides a detailed application of the Madsen test for evaluating the constitutionality of content-neutral injunctions that restrict speech. It underscores that trial courts cannot issue broad prohibitions on protest activity without a specific factual record justifying each and every restriction. The court's decision to remand for a segment-by-segment analysis of the buffer zone establishes a high bar for justifying the geographic scope of such injunctions, requiring proof that each part of the restricted area is necessary to prevent a specific harm. This reinforces the principle that while the government has a significant interest in protecting worship, any resulting burden on speech must be the least restrictive means possible.
Unlock the full brief for Saint John's Church in the Wilderness v. Scott