Block on Trump's Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
In a First Amendment case against the city of Pittsburgh challenging the constitutionality of an ordinance establishing two types of zones limiting speech around health care facilities, district court's judgment is affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, dismissed in part, and remanded where: 1) district court's denial of preliminary injunctive relief with respect to plaintiff's facial challenge is reversed; 2) the combination of the ordinance's "buffer" and "bubble" zones is invalid but either zone, individually, is valid on its face; 3) district court's denial of preliminary injunctive relief with respect to plaintiff's claim of selective enforcement is affirmed but vacated with respect to her claim that the ordinance is unconstitutional as applied to particular clinic locations; and 4) plaintiff's appeal from the district court's order partially dismissing her complaint is dismissed.
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 06-cv-0393)
District Judge: Honorable Nora B. Fischer
Opinion Filed October 30, 2009
Opinion by Scirica, Chief Judge
Counsel for Appellee: Yvonne S. Hilton, Michael E. Kennedy, George R. Specter.
Meeting with a lawyer can help you understand your options and how to best protect your rights. Visit our attorney directory to find a lawyer near you who can help.