High court won't hear abortion clinic 'buffer zone' cases
Legal Compliance News
The Supreme Court on Thursday turned away pleas from anti-abortion activists to make it easier for them to protest outside clinics, declining to wade back into the abortion debate just days after striking down a Louisiana law regulating abortion clinics.
The justices said in a written order that they would not hear cases from Chicago and Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, where anti-abortion activists had challenged ordinances that restrict their behavior outside clinics.
As is usual, the justices did not comment in turning away the cases. The order from the court noted Justice Clarence Thomas would have heard the Chicago case.
The Supreme Court has since the late 1990s heard several cases involving demonstration-free zones, called buffer zones, outside abortion clinics. Most recently, in 2014, the justices unanimously struck down a law that created a 35-foot protest-free zone outside Massachusetts abortion clinics. The court said Massachusetts’ law, which made it a crime to stand in the protest-free zone for most people not entering or exiting the clinic or passing by, was an unconstitutional restraint on the free-speech rights of protesters.
On Thursday, one of the two cases the court declined to take up involved an ordinance passed by the city counsel in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania's capital, in 2012 that made it illegal to “congregate, patrol, picket or demonstrate” in a zone 20 feet from a health care facility. Anti-abortion activists sued, arguing that the ordinance violates their free speech rights. Lower courts have upheld the ordinance, however, ruling it doesn't apply to “sidewalk counseling,” where individuals who oppose abortion offer assistance and information about alternatives to abortion to those entering a clinic.
Related listings
-
Court: Airline’s workers can’t sue as class in pay dispute
Legal Compliance News 12/21/2019American Airlines workers at Newark’s airport who claim in a lawsuit they’ve been shorted on overtime pay can’t sue as a class, a federal appeals court ruled this week.The three-judge panel’s decision published Tuesday reverse...
-
California court invalidates law requiring Trump tax returns
Legal Compliance News 11/19/2019President Donald Trump does not have to disclose his tax returns to appear as a candidate on California’s primary ballot next spring, the state Supreme Court ruled unanimously Thursday.The law, the first of its kind in the nation and aimed squa...
-
Supreme Court takes up case over quick deportations
Legal Compliance News 10/14/2019The Supreme Court will review a lower court ruling in favor of a man seeking asylum and which the Trump administration says could further clog the U.S. immigration court system.The justices said Friday they will hear the administration's appeal of a ...
CHICAGO BUSINESS & CORPORATE LITIGATION LAWYERS
When faced with a legal challenge, your attorneys should help you identify your goals at the beginning of the process. Thereafter, every action that follows must be undertaken with the aim of meeting those goals. Wasted effort equals wasted time and money, that’s something you cannot afford and your attorneys must respect this concept. At Roth Law Group, we counsel our clients to confront their legal challenges aggressively, but with purpose.
As a former Marine Corps Pilot, I learned that you must assess the situation, determine your mission, construct a plan to achieve the mission and execute that plan. As an attorney and small business owner, I apply the same concepts in taking on my client’s legal challenges. And while it is generally preferable to resolve cases early in the process whenever possible, if you have no choice but to fight, you need someone who is willing to aggressively advocate for you. Here at Roth Law Group, we never back down from a challenge and we fight to win. Let our experienced attorneys put you in control of your legal challenges so you can get back to running your business.