Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western NY
519 U.S. 357, 1997 U.S. LEXIS 1270, 137 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An injunction that creates 'floating buffer zones' around people and vehicles violates the First Amendment because it burdens more speech than is necessary to serve the relevant governmental interests. However, an injunction creating 'fixed buffer zones' around clinic doorways and driveways is constitutional if necessary to ensure access and public safety based on the protesters' past conduct.
Facts:
- Anti-abortion protesters, including Paul Schenck and organizations like Operation Rescue, repeatedly engaged in large-scale blockades of abortion clinics operated by the Pro-Choice Network of Western New York.
- Protesters physically blocked access to clinic doorways and driveways by sitting, standing, or lying in them.
- Protesters engaged in aggressive 'sidewalk counseling,' which involved crowding, shouting at, grabbing, pushing, and shoving women attempting to enter the clinics.
- Protesters also trespassed on clinic property, crowded around cars to hinder their entry, and sometimes threw themselves on hoods of vehicles.
- The conduct often escalated, leading to fights between protesters, clinic escorts, and individuals accompanying patients.
- Local police were found to be unable to respond effectively to the constant and overwhelming protest activities, and officers themselves were subjected to harassment by the protesters.
Procedural Posture:
- Pro-Choice Network of Western New York (respondents) sued Paul Schenck and other anti-abortion protesters (petitioners) in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York.
- The District Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against the protesters.
- After finding the protesters continued their disruptive activities and violated the TRO, the District Court issued a preliminary injunction creating 15-foot fixed and floating buffer zones.
- Schenck appealed the preliminary injunction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
- A panel of the Second Circuit initially reversed the District Court, but the case was reheard en banc.
- The en banc Second Circuit affirmed the District Court's preliminary injunction.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision of the Second 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 an injunction imposing a 15-foot 'floating buffer zone' around individuals and vehicles near abortion clinics violate the First Amendment's protection of free speech?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Rehnquist
Yes, the floating buffer zones violate the First Amendment. The Court holds that while fixed buffer zones around clinic entrances are permissible, floating buffer zones around people and vehicles burden more speech than necessary to serve significant government interests. The floating zones are unconstitutional because they are difficult for protesters to comply with and for police to enforce, creating uncertainty and a substantial risk of chilling protected speech. In contrast, the fixed buffer zones are upheld as a necessary and narrowly tailored measure to ensure physical access to the clinics and maintain public safety, given the protesters' history of physically obstructing entrances and harassing patients.
Concurring in part and dissenting in part - Justice Scalia
Yes, the floating buffer zones are unconstitutional, but the majority does not go far enough in striking down the injunction. The fixed buffer zones should also be invalidated because the District Court did not justify them on the legitimate ground of ensuring access, but rather on the erroneous belief that there is a generalized 'right to be left alone' on a public street. The majority improperly saves the fixed zones by positing a justification—that they were necessary to prevent obstruction—that the District Court itself did not make. Furthermore, courts do not have the power to issue injunctions to protect a general 'public safety' interest that was not part of the plaintiff's underlying legal claims.
Concurring in part and dissenting in part - Justice Breyer
No, the injunction should be affirmed in its entirety. The majority misinterprets the injunction's language as creating a broad 'floating bubble.' Based on the District Court's own statements during the proceedings, the language was intended to apply only in the immediate vicinity of the fixed zones near the clinic entrances, not to follow individuals for miles. The appellate court correctly left it to the District Court to clarify this ambiguity. The Supreme Court should not have struck down this provision based on a speculative interpretation that was never raised in the lower court and which the record does not support.
Analysis:
This case significantly refines the legal framework for speech-restrictive injunctions established in Madsen v. Women’s Health Center. It establishes a critical distinction between 'fixed' and 'floating' buffer zones in the context of protests. The Court's skepticism towards floating buffer zones provides strong protection for speech in traditional public forums by highlighting the dangers of vague and unmanageable restrictions that can chill speech. This decision provides clear guidance for lower courts, signaling that while ensuring access to facilities like clinics is a significant government interest, any remedy must be precisely drawn to avoid overly broad restrictions on protesters' First Amendment rights.
