The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) often takes cases involving First Amendment protections. In the 2023-2024 term, the justices heard eight cases related to that particular addition to the U.S. Constitution. The First Amendment protects the right to free speech, but does that guarantee you an audience?
On February 21, 2025, SCOTUS chose not to hear arguments for two cases appealing decisions about eliminating buffer zones outside women's health clinics. As is typical, no reason for the decision was supplied. The Court may have relied on precedent from 2000's Hill v. Colorado, which was targeted for repeal by the plaintiffs.
Neutral Ground
Buffer zones at healthcare clinics and other medical facilities are intended to ensure the safety of incoming patients and the clinic escorts who guide them in past protestors. Considered neutral grounds, they are meant as opinion-free zones outside the entrances of the clinics that apply to everyone in them.
Ordinances regarding buffer zones differ by municipality. For example, some forbid protesters from entering them at all, while others allow passage through without verbal interaction with patients.
Hill v. Colorado is the SCOTUS decision often used as precedent for cases involving buffer zones. In Hill, SCOTUS upheld a Colorado statute that created a floating eight-foot zone around patients within 100 feet of a clinic. The holding was that buffer zone statutes are a neutral time, manner, and place restriction against unwanted communication — as opposed to restricting a speaker's right to address a particular topic, meaning strict scrutiny of the statute was not appropriate. The Hill standard has since been applied to other cases.
Two Potential Cases
Of the two cases potentially before the Court, one had already been resolved. Coalition Life from Missouri had filed a lawsuit against the city of Carbondale, Illinois, for creating an ordinance banning protesters from coming within eight feet of a clinic entrance. However, Carbondale repealed the ordinance during the summer of 2024.
The other case was filed by Jeryl Turco against the city of Englewood, New Jersey. Turco, who refers to herself as a "sidewalk counselor," alleged that the eight-foot-wide buffer zone implemented outside of medical clinics in Englewood in 2014 violated her First Amendment rights, as she was no longer able to follow patients all the way to the clinic's entrance.
Turco's role as a sidewalk counselor involves approaching patients heading into a clinic who she assumes are seeking an abortion. She is not violent or physically aggressive, but attempts to talk them out of their decision by referring to them as "Mom," telling them things like "You're such a pretty girl, your baby would be so beautiful, don't you want to have a beautiful baby?", and urging them to take literature providing alternatives to abortion.
A district court ruling caused the Englewood buffer zone to be removed but the Third Circuit Court of Appeals overturned that decision, relying on Hill. Turco appealed to the Supreme Court.
SCOTUS denied cert, leaving the Third Circuit decision in place.
Protection in Place (for Now)
While buffer zone ordinances differ by state and town, federal protection is offered under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act passed in 1994. Under the FACE Act, protestors can't restrict the passage of patients into the clinic or assault any agents of the facility. The addition of a buffer zone makes it easier for patients to show up for their appointment with a healthcare professional.
There are likely more challenges to buffer zones in SCOTUS's future. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito indicated they would have heard arguments, with Thomas writing that Hill v. Colorado "has been seriously undermined."
Disclaimer: The author of this piece is a team leader for the volunteers who escort patients at the clinic in Englewood, NJ, that the buffer zone in the lawsuit is part of. The author is not employed at the clinic and did not take any part in litigation.
Related Resources
- Learning Judicial Precedent: A Q&A With Bryan Garner (FindLaw's Surviving Law School)
- State Abortion Laws (FindLaw's State Family Laws)
- Freedom of Speech or Freedom From Consequences? (FindLaw's Practice of Law)
