Washington — On Monday, the Supreme Court opted not to hear two appeals from opponents of abortion rights who sought to overturn a 24-year-old ruling permitting buffer zones around abortion clinics, thereby upholding that decision.
By choosing not to enter this legal battle, the justices are avoiding adding a second abortion-related case to their active docket, after two terms wherein the issue was highlighted. Last June, the court dismissed two distinct challenges related to abortion — one focused on access to a commonly used pill for medication abortions, and the other concerning how Idaho’s near-total abortion ban interacts with federal emergency care legislation.
In June 2022, the court’s conservative majority overturned Roe v. Wade, prompting anti-abortion rights organizations to urge the Supreme Court to revisit its 2000 ruling in Hill v. Colorado, which addressed buffer zones around abortion facilities.
Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito expressed that they would have supported hearing these cases. In a dissent pertaining to the court’s refusal to consider one of the appeals involving an ordinance from Carbondale, Illinois, Thomas argued that the Supreme Court should clarify that its 2000 decision “lacks ongoing validity” and must be expressly overturned.
He stated that the ruling in Hill v. Colorado “has been significantly undermined, if not entirely eroded, and our failure to provide clarity is a dereliction of our judicial responsibility.”
The ordinance in Carbondale was enacted shortly after the Supreme Court’s conservative majority curtailed the constitutional right to abortion. Dubbed the “Disorderly Conduct Ordinance,” this regulation emerged in response to increased reports of threats and intimidation faced by reproductive health clinics in the city following the Supreme Court’s decision.
Illinois law safeguards the right to abortion, and in December 2023, Planned Parenthood launched a new facility in Carbondale, responding to a rise in patients seeking abortion services from neighboring states that had imposed restrictions post-Roe’s reversal. Additionally, two more clinics opened in the southern Illinois city, which is near the Missouri border.
Carbondale’s ordinance established a 100-foot buffer zone around the entrances of healthcare facilities, preventing activists from approaching within eight feet of individuals to distribute “leaflets or handbills,” display signs, or engage in “oral protest, education or counseling” within the designated area.
This ordinance became effective in January 2023 but was repealed several months later, with the Carbondale City Council noting it had not been enforced against any potential violators.
Prior to the repeal, the Missouri-based organization Coalition Life contested the ordinance, asserting it infringed upon the First Amendment. Coalition Life coordinates sidewalk counselors who aim to provide information and support to women approaching abortion clinics, including alternatives to terminating pregnancies.
The group maintains that their objective is to engage with patients on a personal level, emphasizing the importance of being close enough for eye contact and to converse in a friendly and gentle manner. However, Carbondale’s ordinance obstructed their ability to achieve that.
A federal district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit ruled to dismiss the challenge, referencing the Supreme Court’s decision in Hill v. Colorado, which upheld a law prohibiting activists from coming within eight feet of individuals entering abortion clinics unless they received permission.
Since the 2000 ruling, the Supreme Court has addressed only one additional case related to buffer zones around abortion clinics. In 2014, the court unanimously invalidated a Massachusetts law that created a 35-foot buffer zone around medical facilities providing abortions, though it excluded four types of individuals: those entering or leaving the facility, employees, law enforcement or public workers, and persons using public sidewalks or rights-of-way covered by the buffer zone for other destinations.
Since the initial ruling in 2000, there has been a significant shift in the court’s composition. Currently, conservatives maintain a 6-3 advantage, and only Justice Thomas remains from the original panel that heard the case, joining the late Justice Antonin Scalia and retired Justice Anthony Kennedy in dissent.
