Paul Schenck and Dwight Saunders, Petitioners v. Pro-Choice Network of Ney York et al. 519 U.S.

357 Decided February 19, 1997 Statement of facts: Abortion clinics in New York were the center of petitions against abortions by a number of individuals. These petitioners often blocked the parking lot entrances and attempted to block individuals seeking abortions from entering the premises. These petitions often turned violent when the individuals seeking to enter the clinic denied any of the protestors information or pleas. The protesters then started pushing, yelling at, shoving, and spitting at women and their escorts entering the building. A District Court filed a restraining order against the protestors, which banned demonstrating within fifteen feet of the clinic and ensured buffer zones around individuals entering the clinic. Only two sidewalk counselors were able to approach incoming individuals and give them counsel, but were to stop if the individual asked them to cease and desist. An en banc Court of Appeals affirmed the injunctions set down by the District Court. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. Legal/Constitutional Questions: Were the injunctions laid down by the District Court imposing floating buffer zones and fixed buffer zones infringe upon the protestors First Amendment right to free speech? Court Decision: The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded and it ruled 8-1 that the injunction that enabled fixed buffer zones around clinics were constitutional while the imposition of floating buffer zones violated the First Amendment. Reasoning for the Decision: Chief Justice William Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the court. The fixed buffer zones did not violate the First Amendment because it upheld womens rights to seek abortions and other family planning services. The floating buffer zones, however, violated protestors First Amendment rights to Free Speech. These buffer zones allowed an individual to tell the protestor to cease and desist mainly for the reason of disagreeing with what the protestor had to say, limiting the freedom of expression of ideas. The court held that the injunction served three significant governmental interests public safety, ensuring that abortions are performed safely, and ensuring that a womans rights to travel interstate and to choose to have an abortion were not sacrificed in the interest of the defendants First Amendment rights. Bottom Line: The cease and desist clause imposed by the District Court injunction was unconstitutional because it was content based, therefore violating Free Speech rights. Floating buffer zones also violated these rights because it kept an individual from communicating a message from a normal conversational distance.