mccullen
et
al
coakley
attorney
general
massachusetts
et
argued
january
decided
july
massachusetts
amended
reproductive
health
care
facilities
act
enacted
address
clashes
abortion
opponents
advocates
abortion
rights
outside
clinics
abortions
performed
amended
version
act
makes
crime
knowingly
stand
public
way
sidewalk
within
feet
entrance
driveway
reproductive
health
care
facility
defined
place
within
upon
grounds
hospital
abortions
offered
performed
mass
laws
ch
act
exempts
prohibition
four
classes
individuals
including
employees
agents
facility
acting
within
scope
employment
another
provision
act
proscribes
knowing
obstruction
access
abortion
clinic
mccullen
petitioners
individuals
attempt
engage
women
approaching
massachusetts
abortion
clinics
sidewalk
counseling
involves
offering
information
alternatives
abortion
help
pursuing
options
claim
buffer
zones
displaced
previous
positions
outside
clinics
considerably
hampering
counseling
efforts
attempts
communicate
patients
thwarted
claim
clinic
escorts
accompany
arriving
patients
buffer
zones
clinic
entrances
petitioners
sued
attorney
general
coakley
commonwealth
officials
seeking
enjoin
act
enforcement
ground
violates
first
fourteenth
amendments
face
applied
district
denied
challenges
first
circuit
affirmed
regard
petitioners
facial
challenge
first
circuit
held
act
reasonable
time
place
manner
regulation
test
set
forth
ward
rock
racism
held
massachusetts
act
violates
first
amendment
pp
terms
act
restricts
access
public
way
sidewalk
places
traditionally
open
speech
activities
accordingly
labeled
traditional
public
fora
pleasant
grove
city
summum
government
ability
regulate
speech
locations
limited
grace
ven
public
forum
however
government
may
impose
reasonable
restrictions
time
place
manner
protected
speech
provided
restrictions
justified
without
reference
content
regulated
speech
narrowly
tailored
serve
significant
governmental
interest
leave
open
ample
alternative
channels
communication
information
ward
supra
pp
act
neither
content
viewpoint
based
need
analyzed
strict
scrutiny
pp
act
content
based
simply
establishes
buffer
zones
abortion
clinics
opposed
kinds
facilities
first
act
draw
distinctions
face
whether
petitioners
violate
act
depends
say
holder
humanitarian
law
project
say
second
even
facially
neutral
law
disproportionately
affects
speech
certain
topics
remains
content
neutral
long
without
reference
content
regulated
speech
renton
playtime
theatres
act
purposes
include
protecting
public
safety
patient
access
healthcare
unobstructed
use
public
sidewalks
streets
previously
deemed
concerns
content
neutral
see
boos
barry
intent
single
regulation
speech
abortion
inferred
act
limited
scope
adopt
laws
address
problems
confront
burson
freeman
record
crowding
obstruction
even
violence
outside
massachusetts
abortion
clinics
kinds
facilities
commonwealth
pp
act
exemption
clinic
employees
agents
acting
within
scope
employment
appear
attempt
favor
one
viewpoint
abortion
city
ladue
gilleo
distinguished
given
kind
exemption
necessary
allow
individuals
work
clinics
enter
remain
within
buffer
zones
scope
employment
qualification
simply
ensures
exemption
limited
purpose
allowing
employees
jobs
even
assuming
clinic
escorts
expressed
views
abortion
inside
zones
record
suggest
speech
within
scope
escorts
employment
turned
particular
clinic
authorized
employees
speak
abortion
buffer
zones
support
challenge
zones
clinic
pp
although
act
content
neutral
narrowly
tailored
burden
substantially
speech
necessary
government
legitimate
interests
ward
pp
buffer
zones
serve
commonwealth
legitimate
interests
maintaining
public
safety
streets
sidewalks
preserving
access
adjacent
reproductive
healthcare
facilities
see
schenck
network
western
time
however
impose
serious
burdens
petitioners
speech
depriving
two
primary
methods
communicating
arriving
patients
close
personal
conversations
distribution
literature
forms
expression
historically
closely
associated
transmission
ideas
act
may
allow
petitioners
protest
outside
buffer
zones
petitioners
protestors
seek
merely
express
opposition
abortion
engage
personal
caring
consensual
conversations
women
various
alternatives
thus
answer
say
petitioners
still
seen
heard
women
within
buffer
zones
women
see
hear
vociferous
opponents
abortion
buffer
zones
effectively
stifled
petitioners
message
pp
buffer
zones
burden
substantially
speech
necessary
achieve
commonwealth
asserted
interests
subsection
act
already
prohibits
deliberate
obstruction
clinic
entrances
massachusetts
also
enact
legislation
similar
federal
freedom
access
clinic
entrances
act
imposes
criminal
civil
sanctions
obstructing
intimidating
interfering
persons
obtaining
providing
reproductive
health
services
obstruction
clinic
driveways
readily
addressed
existing
local
traffic
ordinances
commonwealth
contends
individuals
inadvertently
obstruct
access
clinics
simply
gathering
large
numbers
problem
addressed
law
requiring
crowds
blocking
clinic
entrance
disperse
limited
period
ordered
police
event
crowding
appears
problem
boston
clinic
even
saturday
mornings
commonwealth
shown
seriously
undertook
address
various
problems
less
intrusive
tools
readily
available
identifies
single
prosecution
injunction
individuals
outside
abortion
clinics
since
commonwealth
responds
problems
widespread
individual
prosecutions
injunctions
effective
record
indicates
problems
limited
principally
boston
clinic
saturday
mornings
police
appear
perfectly
capable
singling
lawbreakers
commonwealth
also
claims
difficult
prove
intentional
deliberate
obstruction
intimidation
buffer
zones
accordingly
make
police
job
easier
meet
narrow
tailoring
requirement
however
government
must
demonstrate
alternative
measures
burden
substantially
less
speech
fail
achieve
government
interests
simply
chosen
route
easier
event
determine
whether
someone
intends
block
access
clinic
police
officer
need
order
move
refuses
question
continued
conduct
knowing
intentional
similar
reasons
commonwealth
reliance
burson
freeman
misplaced
upheld
law
establishing
buffer
zones
outside
polling
places
ground
less
restrictive
measures
inadequate
whereas
oter
intimidation
election
fraud
difficult
detect
obstruction
harassment
abortion
clinics
anything
subtle
police
generally
barred
vicinity
polls
avoid
appearance
coercion
electoral
process
maintain
significant
presence
outside
massachusetts
abortion
clinics
short
given
vital
first
amendment
interests
stake
enough
massachusetts
simply
say
approaches
worked
pp
reversed
remanded
roberts
delivered
opinion
ginsburg
breyer
sotomayor
kagan
joined
scalia
filed
opinion
concurring
judgment
kennedy
thomas
joined
alito
filed
opinion
concurring
judgment
opinion
notice
opinion
subject
formal
revision
publication
preliminary
print
reports
readers
requested
notify
reporter
decisions
washington
typographical
formal
errors
order
corrections
may
made
preliminary
print
goes
press
eleanor
mccullen
et
petitioners
martha
coakley
attorney
eral
massachusetts
et
al
writ
certiorari
appeals
first
circuit
june
chief
justice
roberts
delivered
opinion
massachusetts
statute
makes
crime
knowingly
stand
public
way
sidewalk
within
feet
entrance
driveway
place
hospital
abortions
performed
mass
laws
ch
west
petitioners
individuals
approach
talk
women
outside
facilities
attempting
dissuade
abortions
statute
prevents
petitioners
near
facilities
entrances
question
presented
whether
statute
violates
first
amendment
massachusetts
legislature
enacted
massachusetts
reproductive
health
care
facilities
act
mass
laws
ch
west
law
designed
address
clashes
abortion
opponents
advocates
abortion
rights
occurring
outside
clinics
abortions
performed
act
established
defined
area
radius
around
entrances
driveways
facilities
anyone
enter
area
within
one
certain
exempt
individuals
knowingly
approach
within
six
feet
another
person
unless
person
consented
purpose
passing
leaflet
handbill
displaying
sign
engaging
oral
protest
education
counseling
person
ibid
separate
provision
subjected
criminal
punishment
anyone
knowingly
obstructs
detains
hinders
impedes
blocks
another
person
entry
exit
reproductive
health
care
facility
statute
modeled
similar
colorado
law
upheld
hill
colorado
relying
hill
appeals
first
circuit
sustained
massachusetts
statute
first
amendment
challenge
mcguire
reilly
mcguire
ii
cert
denied
mcguire
reilly
mcguire
massachusetts
legislators
law
enforcement
officials
come
regard
statute
inadequate
legislative
hearings
multiple
witnesses
recounted
apparent
violations
law
massachusetts
attorney
general
martha
coakley
example
testified
protestors
violated
statute
routine
basis
app
illustrate
claim
played
video
depicting
protestors
approaching
patients
clinic
staff
within
buffer
zones
ostensibly
without
latter
individuals
consent
clinic
employees
volunteers
also
testified
protestors
congregated
near
doors
driveways
clinics
result
prospective
patients
occasionally
retreated
clinics
rather
try
make
way
clinic
entrances
parking
lots
captain
william
evans
boston
police
department
however
testified
officers
made
five
arrests
planned
parenthood
clinic
boston
prosecutions
brought
unsuccessful
witnesses
attributed
dearth
enforcement
difficulty
policing
zones
captain
evans
testified
zones
crowded
protestors
resembled
goalie
crease
making
hard
determine
whether
protestor
deliberately
approached
patient
whether
patient
consented
similar
reasons
attorney
general
coakley
concluded
zones
unenforceable
police
needed
said
fixed
buffer
zone
around
clinics
protestors
enter
captain
evans
agreed
explaining
zone
make
job
much
easier
address
concerns
massachusetts
legislature
amended
statute
replacing
zones
within
area
fixed
buffer
zone
individuals
categorically
excluded
statute
provides
person
shall
knowingly
enter
remain
public
way
sidewalk
adjacent
reproductive
health
care
facility
within
radius
feet
portion
entrance
exit
driveway
reproductive
health
care
facility
within
area
within
rectangle
created
extending
outside
boundaries
entrance
exit
driveway
reproductive
health
care
facility
straight
lines
point
lines
intersect
sideline
street
front
entrance
exit
driveway
mass
laws
ch
west
reproductive
health
care
facility
turn
defined
place
within
upon
grounds
hospital
abortions
offered
performed
buffer
zone
applies
facility
business
hours
area
must
clearly
marked
posted
practice
facilities
typically
mark
zones
painted
arcs
posted
signs
adjacent
sidewalks
streets
first
violation
statute
punishable
fine
three
months
prison
subsequent
offense
punishable
fine
two
half
years
prison
act
exempts
four
classes
individuals
persons
entering
leaving
facility
employees
agents
facility
acting
within
scope
employment
law
enforcement
ambulance
firefighting
construction
utilities
public
works
municipal
agents
acting
within
scope
employment
persons
using
public
sidewalk
street
adjacent
facility
solely
purpose
reaching
destination
facility
legislature
also
retained
separate
provision
version
proscribes
knowing
obstruction
access
facility
individuals
stand
outside
massachusetts
abortion
clinics
fairly
described
protestors
express
moral
religious
opposition
abortion
signs
chants
cases
aggressive
methods
confrontation
petitioners
take
different
tack
attempt
engage
women
approaching
clinics
call
sidewalk
counseling
involves
offering
information
alternatives
abortion
help
pursuing
options
petitioner
eleanor
mccullen
instance
typically
initiate
conversation
way
good
morning
may
give
literature
anything
available
questions
app
woman
seems
receptive
mccullen
provide
additional
information
mccullen
petitioners
consider
essential
maintain
caring
demeanor
calm
tone
voice
direct
eye
contact
exchanges
interactions
petitioners
believe
much
effective
means
dissuading
women
abortions
confrontational
methods
shouting
brandishing
signs
petitioners
view
tend
antagonize
intended
audience
unrefuted
testimony
petitioners
say
collectively
persuaded
hundreds
women
forgo
abortions
buffer
zones
displaced
petitioners
previous
positions
outside
clinics
mccullen
offers
counseling
outside
planned
parenthood
clinic
boston
petitioners
jean
zarrella
eric
cadin
petitioner
gregory
smith
prays
rosary
clinic
occupies
building
street
corner
main
door
recessed
open
foyer
approximately
feet
back
public
sidewalk
act
amended
create
buffer
zones
petitioners
stood
near
entryway
foyer
buffer
zone
marked
painted
arc
sign
surrounds
entrance
zone
extends
feet
sidewalk
one
direction
feet
outward
one
foot
short
curb
clinic
entrance
adds
another
seven
feet
width
zone
upshot
petitioners
effectively
excluded
expanse
public
sidewalk
front
petitioners
mark
bashour
nancy
clark
offer
counseling
information
outside
planned
parenthood
clinic
worcester
unlike
boston
clinic
worcester
clinic
sits
well
back
public
street
sidewalks
patients
enter
clinic
one
two
ways
arriving
foot
turn
public
sidewalk
walk
nearly
private
walkway
main
entrance
patients
however
arrive
car
turning
onto
clinic
driveway
street
parking
private
lot
walking
main
entrance
private
walkway
bashour
clark
like
stand
private
walkway
driveway
intersects
sidewalk
offer
leaflets
patients
walk
drive
painted
arc
extends
private
walkway
feet
sidewalk
either
direction
outward
nearly
curb
opposite
side
street
another
arc
surrounds
driveway
entrance
covering
feet
sidewalk
including
width
driveway
extending
across
street
nearly
six
feet
onto
sidewalk
opposite
side
bashour
clark
must
stand
either
distance
sidewalk
private
walkway
driveway
across
street
petitioner
cyril
shea
stands
outside
planned
parenthood
clinic
springfield
like
worcester
clinic
set
back
public
streets
approximately
patients
arrive
car
park
private
lots
surrounding
clinic
shea
used
position
entrance
one
five
driveways
leading
parking
lots
painted
arcs
surround
entrances
spanning
approximately
feet
sidewalk
parallel
street
including
width
driveways
extending
outward
well
street
like
petitioners
worcester
clinic
shea
stands
far
sidewalk
driveway
entrances
petitioners
three
clinics
claim
buffer
zones
considerably
hampered
counseling
efforts
although
managed
conduct
counseling
distribute
literature
outside
buffer
zones
particularly
boston
clinic
say
many
fewer
conversations
distributed
many
fewer
leaflets
since
zones
went
effect
second
statutory
exemption
allows
clinic
employees
agents
acting
within
scope
employment
enter
buffer
zones
relying
exemption
boston
clinic
uses
escorts
greet
women
approach
clinic
accompanying
zones
clinic
entrance
petitioners
claim
escorts
sometimes
thwart
petitioners
attempts
communicate
patients
blocking
petitioners
handing
literature
patients
telling
patients
pay
attention
listen
petitioners
disparaging
petitioners
crazy
january
petitioners
sued
attorney
general
coakley
commonwealth
officials
sought
enjoin
enforcement
act
alleging
violates
first
fourteenth
amendments
face
applied
district
denied
petitioners
facial
challenge
bench
trial
based
stipulated
record
supp
mass
appeals
first
circuit
affirmed
relying
extensively
previous
decisions
upholding
version
act
see
mcguire
ii
mcguire
upheld
version
reasonable
time
place
manner
regulation
test
set
forth
ward
rock
racism
also
rejected
petitioners
arguments
act
substantially
overbroad
void
vagueness
impermissible
prior
restraint
case
returned
district
held
first
circuit
decision
foreclosed
one
petitioners
challenges
supp
another
bench
trial
denied
remaining
challenge
finding
act
left
petitioners
ample
alternative
channels
communication
supp
appeals
affirmed
granted
certiorari
ii
terms
massachusetts
act
regulates
access
public
way
sidewalk
mass
laws
ch
supp
areas
occupy
special
position
terms
first
amendment
protection
historic
role
sites
discussion
debate
grace
places
labeled
traditional
public
fora
immemorially
held
trust
use
public
time
mind
used
purposes
assembly
communicating
thoughts
citizens
discussing
public
questions
pleasant
grove
city
summum
quoting
perry
ed
assn
perry
local
educators
accident
public
streets
sidewalks
developed
venues
exchange
ideas
even
today
remain
one
places
speaker
confident
simply
preaching
choir
respect
means
communication
individual
confronted
uncomfortable
message
always
turn
page
change
channel
leave
web
site
public
streets
sidewalks
listener
often
encounters
speech
might
otherwise
tune
light
first
amendment
purpose
preserve
uninhibited
marketplace
ideas
truth
ultimately
prevail
fcc
league
women
voters
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
aspect
traditional
public
fora
virtue
vice
short
traditional
public
fora
areas
historically
open
public
speech
activities
thus
even
though
act
says
nothing
speech
face
doubt
respondents
dispute
restricts
access
traditional
public
fora
therefore
subject
first
amendment
scrutiny
see
brief
respondents
although
terms
act
regulates
conduct
incidentally
regulates
place
time
protected
speech
consistent
traditionally
open
character
public
streets
sidewalks
held
government
ability
restrict
speech
locations
limited
grace
supra
particular
guiding
first
amendment
principle
government
power
restrict
expression
message
ideas
subject
matter
content
applies
full
force
traditional
public
forum
police
dept
chicago
mosley
general
rule
forum
government
may
selectively
shield
public
kinds
speech
ground
offensive
others
erznoznik
jacksonville
however
afforded
government
somewhat
wider
leeway
regulate
features
speech
unrelated
content
ven
public
forum
government
may
impose
reasonable
restrictions
time
place
manner
protected
speech
provided
restrictions
justified
without
reference
content
regulated
speech
narrowly
tailored
serve
significant
governmental
interest
leave
open
ample
alternative
channels
communication
information
ward
quoting
clark
community
creative
parties
agree
test
supplies
proper
framework
assessing
constitutionality
massachusetts
act
disagree
whether
act
satisfies
test
three
requirements
iii
petitioners
contend
act
content
neutral
two
independent
reasons
first
argue
discriminates
speech
establishes
buffer
zones
clinics
perform
abortions
second
petitioners
contend
act
exempting
clinic
employees
agents
favors
one
viewpoint
abortion
either
arguments
correct
act
must
satisfy
strict
scrutiny
must
least
restrictive
means
achieving
compelling
state
interest
see
playboy
entertainment
group
respondents
argue
act
survive
exacting
standard
justice
scalia
objects
decision
consider
whether
statute
content
based
thus
subject
strict
scrutiny
given
ultimately
conclude
narrowly
tailored
post
opinion
concurring
judgment
think
unexceptional
perform
first
part
multipart
constitutional
analysis
first
prong
ward
test
logically
antecedent
prong
determines
appropriate
level
scrutiny
unusual
proceed
sequentially
applying
constitutional
test
even
preliminary
steps
turn
dispositive
see
bartnicki
vopper
holder
humanitarian
law
project
concluding
law
content
based
even
though
ultimately
survived
strict
scrutiny
sometimes
assume
without
deciding
law
subject
less
stringent
level
scrutiny
earlier
term
mccutcheon
federal
election
commission
plurality
opinion
slip
distinction
case
one
seems
clear
applying
standard
review
intermediate
scrutiny
mccutcheon
standard
assumed
apply
required
overruling
precedent
similar
reason
forgo
ordinary
order
operations
case
time
good
reason
address
content
neutrality
discussing
whether
act
narrowly
tailored
see
part
iv
infra
identify
number
alternative
measures
massachusetts
legislature
might
adopted
apply
abortion
clinics
raises
question
whether
provisions
content
neutral
see
infra
need
endorse
measures
odd
consider
possible
alternatives
presumptively
unconstitutional
content
based
thus
subject
strict
scrutiny
act
applies
reproductive
health
care
facility
defined
place
within
upon
grounds
hospital
abortions
offered
performed
mass
laws
ch
given
definition
petitioners
argue
virtually
speech
affected
act
speech
concerning
abortion
thus
rendering
act
content
based
brief
petitioners
disagree
begin
act
draw
distinctions
face
contrast
boos
barry
ordinance
prohibiting
display
within
feet
foreign
embassy
sign
tends
bring
foreign
government
carey
brown
statute
prohibiting
residential
picketing
except
peaceful
labor
picketing
act
content
based
required
enforcement
authorities
examine
content
message
conveyed
determine
whether
violation
occurred
league
women
voters
supra
whether
petitioners
violate
act
depends
say
humanitarian
law
project
supra
simply
say
indeed
petitioners
violate
act
merely
standing
buffer
zone
without
displaying
sign
uttering
word
true
course
limiting
buffer
zones
abortion
clinics
act
inevitable
effect
restricting
speech
speech
subjects
brief
petitioners
quoting
facially
neutral
law
become
content
based
simply
may
disproportionately
affect
speech
certain
topics
contrary
regulation
serves
purposes
unrelated
content
expression
deemed
neutral
even
incidental
effect
speakers
messages
others
ward
supra
question
case
whether
law
without
reference
content
regulated
speech
renton
playtime
theatres
quoting
virginia
pharmacy
board
virginia
citizens
consumer
council
emphasis
deleted
massachusetts
act
stated
purpose
increase
forthwith
public
safety
reproductive
health
care
facilities
mass
acts
respondents
articulated
similar
purposes
namely
public
safety
patient
access
healthcare
unobstructed
use
public
sidewalks
roadways
brief
respondents
see
app
testimony
attorney
general
coakley
testimony
captain
william
evans
boston
police
testimony
mary
beth
heffernan
undersecretary
criminal
justice
affidavit
captain
evans
case
objective
indication
shows
provision
primary
purpose
restrict
speech
opposes
abortion
post
previously
deemed
foregoing
concerns
content
neutral
see
boos
identifying
congestion
interference
ingress
egress
need
protect
security
concerns
obstructed
access
congested
sidewalks
problems
matter
caused
group
individuals
obstruct
clinic
access
clog
sidewalks
much
loiter
protest
abortion
counsel
patients
clear
act
content
neutral
concerned
undesirable
effects
arise
direct
impact
speech
audience
isteners
reactions
speech
ibid
example
speech
outside
massachusetts
abortion
clinics
caused
offense
made
listeners
uncomfortable
offense
discomfort
give
commonwealth
justification
restrict
speech
problems
identified
commonwealth
however
arise
irrespective
listener
reactions
whether
single
person
reacts
abortion
protestors
chants
petitioners
counseling
large
crowds
outside
abortion
clinics
still
compromise
public
safety
impede
access
obstruct
sidewalks
petitioners
really
dispute
commonwealth
interests
ensuring
safety
preventing
obstruction
general
matter
content
neutral
petitioners
note
interests
apply
outside
every
building
state
hosts
activity
might
occasion
protest
comment
abortion
clinics
brief
petitioners
choosing
pursue
interests
abortion
clinics
petitioners
argue
massachusetts
legislature
evinced
purpose
single
regulation
speech
one
particular
topic
abortion
reply
brief
infer
purpose
act
limited
scope
broad
reach
statute
help
confirm
enacted
burden
narrower
category
disfavored
speech
see
kagan
private
speech
public
purpose
role
governmental
motive
first
amendment
doctrine
chi
rev
time
however
adopt
laws
address
problems
confront
first
amendment
require
regulate
problems
exist
burson
freeman
plurality
opinion
massachusetts
legislature
amended
act
response
problem
experience
limited
abortion
clinics
record
crowding
obstruction
even
violence
outside
clinics
apparently
similar
recurring
problems
associated
kinds
healthcare
facilities
let
alone
every
building
state
hosts
activity
might
occasion
protest
comment
brief
petitioners
light
limited
nature
problem
reasonable
massachusetts
legislature
enact
limited
solution
selecting
among
various
options
combating
particular
problem
legislatures
encouraged
choose
one
restricts
less
speech
justice
scalia
objects
statute
restrict
speech
necessary
one
massachusetts
abortion
clinic
known
beset
problems
statute
supposedly
addresses
post
grounds
inferring
discrimination
simply
legislature
acted
respect
abortion
facilities
generally
rather
proceeding
basis
facts
poor
fit
noted
justice
scalia
goes
question
narrow
tailoring
consider
see
infra
petitioners
also
argue
act
content
based
exempts
four
classes
individuals
mass
laws
ch
one
comprises
employees
agents
reproductive
healthcare
facility
acting
within
scope
employment
exemption
petitioners
say
favors
one
side
abortion
debate
thus
constitutes
viewpoint
discrimination
egregious
form
content
discrimination
rosenberger
rector
visitors
univ
particular
petitioners
argue
exemption
allows
clinic
employees
agents
including
volunteers
escort
patients
arriving
boston
clinic
speak
inside
buffer
zones
course
true
exemption
otherwise
permissible
regulation
speech
may
represent
governmental
give
one
side
debatable
public
question
advantage
expressing
views
people
city
ladue
gilleo
quoting
first
nat
bank
boston
bellotti
least
record
us
however
statutory
exemption
clinic
employees
agents
acting
within
scope
employment
appear
attempt
nothing
inherently
suspect
providing
kind
exemption
allow
individuals
work
clinics
enter
remain
within
buffer
zones
particular
exemption
regarded
simply
clinic
escorts
also
covers
employees
maintenance
worker
shoveling
snowy
sidewalk
security
guard
patrolling
clinic
entrance
see
app
affidavit
michael
baniukiewicz
given
need
exemption
clinic
employees
scope
employment
qualification
simply
ensures
exemption
limited
purpose
allowing
employees
jobs
performs
function
identical
scope
employment
restriction
exemption
law
enforcement
ambulance
construction
utilities
public
works
municipal
agents
contrary
suggestion
justice
scalia
post
little
reason
suppose
massachusetts
legislature
intended
incorporate
common
law
doctrine
developed
determining
vicarious
liability
tort
used
phrase
scope
employment
wholly
different
purpose
defining
scope
exemption
criminal
statute
limitation
instead
makes
clear
respect
clinic
employees
municipal
agents
exempted
individuals
allowed
inside
zones
perform
acts
authorized
employers
suggestion
record
clinics
authorize
employees
speak
abortion
buffer
zones
scope
employment
limitation
thus
seems
designed
protect
exactly
sort
conduct
petitioners
justice
scalia
fear
petitioners
testify
litigation
instances
escorts
boston
clinic
expressed
views
abortion
women
accompanying
thwarted
petitioners
attempts
speak
hand
literature
women
disparaged
petitioners
various
ways
see
app
unclear
petitioners
testimony
whether
alleged
incidents
occurred
within
buffer
zones
viewpoint
discrimination
problem
incidents
occurred
outside
zones
petitioners
equally
free
say
whatever
like
area
even
assuming
incidents
occurred
inside
zones
record
suggest
involved
speech
within
scope
escorts
employment
speech
beyond
scope
employment
alleged
incidents
violate
act
express
terms
petitioners
complaint
police
failing
enforce
act
equally
clinic
escorts
cf
hoye
city
oakland
finding
selective
enforcement
similar
ordinance
oakland
california
allegations
might
state
claim
official
viewpoint
discrimination
go
validity
act
event
petitioners
nowhere
allege
selective
enforcement
different
question
turned
clinic
authorized
escorts
speak
abortion
inside
buffer
zones
see
post
alito
concurring
judgment
case
escorts
seem
violating
act
speech
within
scope
act
exemption
clinic
employees
facilitate
speech
one
side
abortion
debate
clear
form
viewpoint
discrimination
support
challenge
buffer
zone
clinic
record
us
contains
insufficient
evidence
show
exemption
operates
way
clinics
perhaps
clinics
want
doom
act
allowing
employees
speak
abortion
within
buffer
thus
conclude
act
neither
content
viewpoint
based
therefore
need
analyzed
strict
scrutiny
iv
even
though
act
content
neutral
still
must
narrowly
tailored
serve
significant
governmental
interest
ward
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
tailoring
requirement
guard
impermissible
desire
censor
government
may
attempt
suppress
speech
disagrees
message
expressed
also
mere
convenience
certain
speech
associated
particular
problems
silencing
speech
sometimes
path
least
resistance
demanding
close
fit
ends
means
tailoring
requirement
prevents
government
readily
sacrific
ing
speech
efficiency
riley
national
federation
blind
time
place
manner
regulation
narrowly
tailored
must
burden
substantially
speech
necessary
government
legitimate
interests
ward
regulation
unlike
restriction
speech
need
least
restrictive
least
intrusive
means
serving
government
interests
government
still
may
regulate
expression
manner
substantial
portion
burden
speech
serve
advance
goals
noted
respondents
claim
act
promotes
public
safety
patient
access
healthcare
unobstructed
use
public
sidewalks
roadways
brief
respondents
petitioners
dispute
significance
interests
moreover
previously
recognized
legitimacy
government
interests
ensuring
public
safety
order
promoting
free
flow
traffic
streets
sidewalks
protecting
property
rights
protecting
woman
freedom
seek
services
schenck
network
western
see
also
madsen
women
health
center
buffer
zones
clearly
serve
interests
time
buffer
zones
impose
serious
burdens
petitioners
speech
three
planned
parenthood
clinics
petitioners
attempt
counsel
patients
zones
carve
significant
portion
adjacent
public
sidewalks
pushing
petitioners
well
back
clinics
entrances
driveways
zones
thereby
compromise
petitioners
ability
initiate
close
personal
conversations
view
essential
sidewalk
counseling
example
uncontradicted
testimony
mccullen
explained
often
distinguish
patients
passersby
outside
boston
clinic
time
initiate
conversation
enter
buffer
zone
app
even
manage
begin
discussion
outside
zone
must
stop
abruptly
painted
border
believes
causes
appear
untrustworthy
suspicious
given
limitations
mccullen
often
reduced
raising
voice
patients
outside
zone
mode
communication
sharply
odds
compassionate
message
wishes
convey
clark
gave
similar
testimony
experience
worcester
clinic
burdens
petitioners
speech
clearly
taken
toll
although
mccullen
claims
persuaded
women
terminate
pregnancies
since
amendment
app
pet
cert
also
says
reaches
far
fewer
people
amendment
app
zarrella
reports
even
precipitous
decline
success
rate
estimated
successful
interactions
years
amendment
single
one
since
worcester
clinic
clark
testified
one
woman
make
effort
walk
across
street
speak
buffer
zones
also
made
substantially
difficult
petitioners
distribute
literature
arriving
patients
explained
petitioners
boston
readily
identify
patients
enter
zone
often
approach
time
place
literature
near
hands
effective
means
getting
patients
accept
worcester
springfield
zones
pushed
petitioners
far
back
clinics
driveways
longer
even
attempt
offer
literature
drivers
turn
parking
lots
short
act
operates
deprive
petitioners
two
primary
methods
communicating
patients
appeals
respondents
wrong
downplay
burdens
petitioners
speech
appeals
saw
constitution
accord
special
protection
close
conversations
handbilling
first
amendment
guarantee
speaker
right
particular
form
expression
forms
normal
conversation
leafletting
public
sidewalk
historically
closely
associated
transmission
ideas
others
context
petition
campaigns
observed
communication
effective
fundamental
perhaps
economical
avenue
political
discourse
meyer
grant
see
also
schenck
supra
invalidating
floating
buffer
zone
around
people
entering
abortion
clinic
partly
ground
prevented
protestors
communicating
message
normal
conversational
distance
handing
leaflets
people
entering
leaving
clinics
walking
public
sidewalks
handing
leaflets
advocacy
politically
controversial
viewpoint
essence
first
amendment
expression
form
speech
entitled
greater
constitutional
protection
mcintyre
ohio
elections
see
also
schenck
supra
leafletting
commenting
matters
public
concern
classic
forms
speech
lie
heart
first
amendment
government
makes
difficult
engage
modes
communication
imposes
especially
significant
first
amendment
respondents
also
emphasize
act
prevent
petitioners
engaging
various
forms
protest
chanting
slogans
displaying
signs
outside
buffer
zones
brief
respondents
misses
point
petitioners
protestors
seek
merely
express
opposition
abortion
inform
women
various
alternatives
provide
help
pursuing
petitioners
believe
accomplish
objective
personal
caring
consensual
conversations
good
reason
easier
ignore
strained
voice
waving
hand
direct
greeting
outstretched
arm
record
indicates
petitioners
able
number
quiet
conversations
outside
buffer
zones
respondents
refuted
petitioners
testimony
conversations
far
less
frequent
far
less
successful
since
buffer
zones
instituted
thus
answer
say
petitioners
still
seen
heard
women
within
buffer
zones
women
see
hear
vociferous
opponents
abortion
buffer
zones
effectively
stifled
petitioners
message
finally
respondents
suggest
worcester
springfield
clinics
petitioners
prevented
communicating
patients
buffer
zones
fact
patients
arrive
car
park
clinics
private
lots
true
layout
two
clinics
prevent
petitioners
approaching
clinics
doorways
even
without
buffer
zones
petitioners
claim
right
trespass
clinics
property
instead
claim
right
stand
public
sidewalks
driveway
cars
turn
parking
lot
buffer
zones
must
stand
substantial
distance
away
act
alone
responsible
restriction
ability
convey
message
buffer
zones
burden
substantially
speech
necessary
achieve
commonwealth
asserted
interests
outset
note
act
truly
exceptional
respondents
amici
identify
state
law
creates
fixed
buffer
zones
around
abortion
course
mean
law
invalid
however
raise
concern
commonwealth
readily
forgone
options
serve
interests
well
without
substantially
burdening
kind
speech
petitioners
wish
engage
case
commonwealth
interests
include
ensuring
public
safety
outside
abortion
clinics
preventing
harassment
intimidation
patients
clinic
staff
combating
deliberate
obstruction
clinic
entrances
act
contains
separate
provision
subsection
unchallenged
petitioners
prohibits
much
conduct
provision
subjects
criminal
punishment
ny
person
knowingly
obstructs
detains
hinders
impedes
blocks
another
person
entry
exit
reproductive
health
care
facility
mass
laws
ch
massachusetts
determines
broader
prohibitions
along
lines
necessary
enact
legislation
similar
federal
freedom
access
clinic
entrances
act
face
act
subjects
criminal
civil
penalties
anyone
force
threat
force
physical
obstruction
intentionally
injures
intimidates
interferes
attempts
injure
intimidate
interfere
person
person
order
intimidate
person
person
class
persons
obtaining
providing
reproductive
health
services
dozen
done
see
brief
state
new
york
et
al
amici
curiae
commonwealth
particularly
concerned
harassment
also
consider
ordinance
one
adopted
new
york
city
prohibits
obstructing
access
clinic
also
makes
crime
follow
harass
another
person
within
feet
premises
reproductive
health
care
facility
admin
code
commonwealth
points
substantial
public
safety
risk
created
protestors
obstruct
driveways
leading
clinics
see
app
however
example
failure
look
less
intrusive
means
addressing
concerns
obstruction
readily
addressed
existing
local
ordinances
see
worcester
revised
ordinances
ch
person
shall
stand
place
obstruction
kind
upon
street
sidewalk
crosswalk
manner
obstruct
free
passage
travelers
thereon
boston
municipal
code
ch
person
shall
solicit
walking
standing
going
street
highway
used
motor
vehicle
travel
area
appurtenant
thereto
including
medians
shoulder
areas
bicycle
lanes
ramps
exit
ramps
foregoing
measures
course
addition
available
generic
criminal
statutes
forbidding
assault
breach
peace
trespass
vandalism
like
addition
subsection
act
face
act
new
york
city
ordinance
enforceable
criminal
prosecutions
also
public
private
civil
actions
injunctions
equitable
relief
see
mass
laws
admin
code
previously
noted
first
amendment
virtues
targeted
injunctions
alternatives
broad
prophylactic
measures
injunction
regulates
activities
perhaps
speech
group
group
past
actions
context
specific
dispute
real
parties
madsen
emphasis
added
moreover
given
equitable
nature
injunctive
relief
courts
tailor
remedy
ensure
restricts
speech
necessary
see
schenck
short
injunctive
relief
focuses
precise
individuals
precise
conduct
causing
particular
problem
act
contrast
categorically
excludes
individuals
buffer
zones
unnecessarily
sweeping
innocent
individuals
speech
commonwealth
also
asserts
interest
preventing
congestion
front
abortion
clinics
according
respondents
even
individuals
deliberately
obstruct
access
clinics
inadvertently
simply
gathering
large
numbers
commonwealth
address
problem
targeted
means
localities
example
ordinances
require
crowds
blocking
clinic
entrance
disperse
ordered
police
forbid
individuals
reassemble
within
certain
distance
clinic
certain
period
see
brief
state
new
york
et
al
amici
curiae
upheld
similar
law
forbidding
three
people
congregate
within
feet
foreign
embassy
refuse
disperse
ordered
police
boos
quoting
code
order
police
give
believe
threat
security
peace
embassy
present
quoting
finzer
barry
cadc
extent
commonwealth
argues
even
types
laws
ineffective
another
problem
portions
record
respondents
cite
support
anticongestion
interest
pertain
mainly
one
place
one
time
boston
planned
parenthood
clinic
saturday
mornings
app
respondents
point
us
evidence
individuals
regularly
gather
clinics
times
boston
sufficiently
large
groups
obstruct
access
problem
shown
arise
week
one
city
one
clinic
creating
buffer
zones
every
clinic
across
commonwealth
hardly
narrowly
tailored
solution
point
massachusetts
must
enact
even
proposed
measures
discussed
point
instead
commonwealth
available
variety
approaches
appear
capable
serving
interests
without
excluding
individuals
areas
historically
open
speech
debate
respondents
one
reply
tried
approaches
work
respondents
emphasize
history
massachusetts
obstruction
abortion
clinics
commonwealth
allegedly
failed
attempts
combat
obstruction
injunctions
individual
prosecutions
also
point
commonwealth
experience
version
act
police
found
difficult
enforce
zones
given
frenetic
activity
front
clinic
entrances
brief
respondents
according
respondents
history
shows
massachusetts
tried
less
restrictive
alternatives
buffer
zones
avail
accept
contention
although
respondents
claim
massachusetts
tried
laws
already
books
identify
single
prosecution
brought
laws
within
least
last
years
also
claim
commonwealth
tried
injunctions
last
injunctions
cite
date
see
citing
planned
parenthood
league
bell
mass
planned
parenthood
league
operation
rescue
mass
short
commonwealth
shown
seriously
undertook
address
problem
less
intrusive
tools
readily
available
shown
considered
different
methods
jurisdictions
found
effective
respondents
contend
alternatives
discussed
suffer
two
defects
first
given
widespread
nature
problem
simply
practicable
rely
individual
prosecutions
injunctions
brief
respondents
far
widespread
problem
appears
record
limited
principally
boston
clinic
saturday
mornings
moreover
account
police
appear
perfectly
capable
singling
lawbreakers
legislative
testimony
preceding
act
revealed
substantial
police
video
monitoring
clinics
especially
large
gatherings
anticipated
captain
evans
testified
officers
familiar
scene
outside
boston
clinic
know
players
app
attorney
general
coakley
relied
video
surveillance
show
legislators
conduct
thought
clearly
law
commonwealth
officials
compile
extensive
record
obstruction
harassment
support
preferred
legislation
see
support
injunctions
prosecutions
might
deliberately
flout
law
second
supposed
defect
alternatives
identified
laws
like
subsection
act
federal
face
act
require
showing
intentional
deliberate
obstruction
intimidation
harassment
often
difficult
prove
brief
respondents
captain
evans
predicted
legislative
testimony
fixed
buffer
zones
make
job
much
easier
app
course
enough
satisfy
first
amendment
meet
requirement
narrow
tailoring
government
must
demonstrate
alternative
measures
burden
substantially
less
speech
fail
achieve
government
interests
simply
chosen
route
easier
painted
line
sidewalk
easy
enforce
prime
objective
first
amendment
efficiency
case
think
showing
intentional
obstruction
nearly
difficult
context
respondents
suggest
determine
whether
protestor
intends
block
access
clinic
police
officer
need
order
move
refuses
question
continued
conduct
knowing
intentional
similar
reasons
respondents
reliance
decision
burson
freeman
misplaced
upheld
state
statute
established
buffer
zones
outside
polling
places
election
day
within
one
display
distribute
campaign
materials
solicit
votes
approved
buffer
zones
valid
prophylactic
measure
noting
existing
ntimidation
interference
laws
fall
short
serving
state
compelling
interests
blatant
specific
attempts
impede
elections
quoting
buckley
valeo
per
curiam
laws
insufficient
oter
intimidation
election
fraud
difficult
detect
burson
obstruction
abortion
clinics
harassment
patients
contrast
anything
subtle
also
noted
burson
state
law
law
enforcement
officers
generally
barred
vicinity
polls
avoid
appearance
coercion
electoral
process
result
many
acts
interference
go
undetected
police
maintain
significant
presence
outside
massachusetts
abortion
clinics
buffer
zones
burson
justified
less
restrictive
measures
inadequate
respondents
shown
case
given
vital
first
amendment
interests
stake
enough
massachusetts
simply
say
approaches
petitioners
wish
converse
fellow
citizens
important
subject
public
streets
sidewalks
sites
hosted
discussions
issues
day
throughout
history
respondents
assert
undeniably
significant
interests
maintaining
public
safety
streets
sidewalks
well
preserving
access
adjacent
healthcare
facilities
commonwealth
pursued
interests
extreme
step
closing
substantial
portion
traditional
public
forum
speakers
done
without
seriously
addressing
problem
alternatives
leave
forum
open
purposes
commonwealth
may
consistent
first
amendment
judgment
appeals
first
circuit
reversed
case
remanded
proceedings
consistent
opinion
ordered
scalia
concurring
judgment
eleanor
mccullen
et
petitioners
martha
coakley
attorney
general
massachusetts
et
al
writ
certiorari
appeals
first
circuit
june
justice
scalia
justice
kennedy
justice
thomas
join
concurring
judgment
today
opinion
carries
forward
practice
giving
advocates
pass
comes
suppressing
rights
opponents
entirely
separate
abridged
edition
first
amendment
applicable
speech
abortion
see
hill
colorado
madsen
women
health
center
second
half
analysis
today
invalidating
law
issue
inadequate
tailoring
certainly
attractive
us
oppose
edition
first
amendment
think
opinion
something
everyone
significant
portion
continues
onward
march
jurisprudence
first
half
analysis
concludes
statute
sort
content
based
hence
subject
strict
scrutiny
reaches
decide
question
unnecessarily
least
unnecessarily
insofar
legal
analysis
concerned
disagree
dicta
part
iii
hence
see
reason
opine
holding
part
iv
discussion
unnecessary
gratuitous
portion
today
opinion
part
iii
concludes
seven
pages
purest
dicta
subsection
massachusetts
reproductive
health
care
facilities
act
specifically
directed
speech
opposing
even
concerning
abortion
hence
need
meet
standard
applicable
speech
inasmuch
part
iv
holds
act
unconstitutional
survive
lesser
level
scrutiny
associated
time
place
manner
regulations
principled
reason
majority
decide
whether
statute
subject
strict
scrutiny
months
past
found
unnecessary
parse
differences
two
available
standards
statute
challenged
first
amendment
grounds
fail
even
less
demanding
test
mccutcheon
federal
election
plurality
opinion
slip
changed
since
quite
simple
abortion
case
mccutcheon
engaging
constitutional
dictum
reaching
wrong
result
majority
preserve
ability
jurisdictions
across
country
restrict
antiabortion
speech
without
fear
rigorous
constitutional
review
dart
pleat
regulations
sure
satisfy
tailoring
standards
applied
part
iv
majority
opinion
cites
two
cases
proposition
unusual
proceed
sequentially
applying
constitutional
test
even
preliminary
steps
turn
dispositive
ante
citing
bartnicki
vopper
holder
humanitarian
law
project
cases
provide
little
cover
disagreement
among
members
whether
statutes
question
discriminated
basis
thus
little
harm
answering
constitutional
question
logically
antecedent
ante
present
case
however
content
neutrality
far
clear
divided
parties
vigorously
dispute
point
see
ibid
one
thought
avoid
issue
simply
assuming
without
deciding
logically
antecedent
point
done
often
see
herrera
collins
regents
univ
ewing
board
curators
univ
mo
horowitz
points
opinion
goes
suggest
part
iv
possible
alternatives
apply
abortion
clinics
therefore
raises
question
whether
provisions
content
neutral
ante
course
obligation
provide
advice
alternative
speech
restrictions
appending
otherwise
unnecessary
constitutional
pronouncements
advice
produces
nothing
impermissible
advisory
opinion
way
dictum
favorable
advocates
abortion
rights
even
part
iv
invites
massachusetts
means
satisfying
tailoring
requirement
consider
ordinance
one
adopted
new
york
city
makes
crime
follow
harass
another
person
within
feet
premises
reproductive
health
care
facility
ante
quoting
admin
code
harassment
one
wonders
eleanor
mccullen
ask
woman
quietly
politely
two
times
whether
take
literature
whether
questions
three
times
four
times
seems
far
certain
first
amendment
rights
imperiled
threatening
jail
time
reproductive
health
care
facilit
ies
course
vague
offense
follow
ing
harass
ing
wrong
give
approval
legislation
without
benefit
briefing
argument
ii
statute
content
based
fails
strict
scrutiny
eagerly
volunteered
take
question
provides
wrong
answer
petitioners
argue
two
reasons
subsection
articulates
speech
restriction
must
therefore
evaluate
lens
strict
scrutiny
application
abortion
clinics
first
petitioners
maintain
act
targets
practical
purposes
speech
applies
outside
abortion
clinics
rather
outside
buildings
well
public
streets
sidewalks
traditional
forums
speech
matters
public
concern
therefore
acknowledges
hold
position
terms
first
amendment
protection
ante
quoting
grace
moreover
public
spaces
outside
facilities
ha
become
necessity
virtue
decisions
forum
last
resort
oppose
abortion
hill
scalia
dissenting
blinks
reality
say
majority
blanket
prohibition
use
streets
sidewalks
speech
one
politically
controversial
topic
likely
occur
speech
effectively
communicated
content
based
exempt
strict
scrutiny
law
banning
access
streets
sidewalks
surrounding
site
republican
national
convention
used
annually
commemorate
civil
rights
marches
outside
internal
revenue
service
surely
majority
says
correctly
enough
facially
neutral
speech
restriction
escapes
strict
scrutiny
even
may
disproportionately
affect
speech
certain
topics
long
justified
without
reference
content
regulated
speech
ante
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
cases
previously
found
standard
satisfied
particular
renton
playtime
theatres
ward
rock
racism
majority
cites
far
cry
confronts
us
renton
upheld
zoning
ordinance
prohibiting
adult
theaters
within
feet
residential
neighborhoods
churches
parks
schools
ordinance
content
neutral
held
purpose
suppress
pornographic
speech
qua
speech
rather
mitigate
secondary
effects
adult
theaters
including
prevent
ing
crime
protect
ing
city
retail
trade
maintain
ing
values
reasoned
city
concerned
restricting
message
purveyed
adult
theaters
tried
close
restrict
number
rather
circumscribe
choice
location
quoting
young
american
mini
theatres
powell
concurring
part
ward
turn
involved
new
york
city
regulation
requiring
use
city
sound
equipment
technician
events
bandshell
central
park
held
regulation
content
neutral
principal
justification
city
desire
control
noise
levels
justification
nothing
respondent
rock
concerts
music
generally
regulation
ha
material
impact
performer
ability
exercise
complete
artistic
control
sound
quality
see
also
compare
cases
reasons
concluding
regulations
question
justified
without
reference
content
regulated
speech
feeble
reasons
majority
adoption
conclusion
present
case
majority
points
statute
stated
purpose
increasing
abortion
clinics
ante
quoting
mass
acts
additional
aims
articulated
respondents
namely
protecting
access
healthcare
unobstructed
use
public
sidewalks
roadways
ante
quoting
brief
respondents
really
statute
become
justified
without
reference
content
regulated
speech
simply
statute
defending
say
every
objective
indication
shows
provision
primary
purpose
restrict
speech
opposes
abortion
begin
suggested
fact
act
burdens
public
spaces
outside
abortion
clinics
one
might
expected
majority
defend
statute
peculiar
targeting
arguing
locations
regularly
face
safety
access
problems
says
act
designed
solve
majority
make
argument
untrue
belatedly
discovers
part
iv
opinion
statute
applies
abortion
clinics
massachusetts
one
known
beset
problems
statute
supposedly
addresses
see
ante
uses
striking
fact
smoking
gun
speak
basis
concluding
law
insufficiently
tailored
safety
access
concerns
part
iv
rather
basis
concluding
directed
concerns
suppression
antiabortion
speech
rather
like
invoking
eight
missed
human
targets
shooter
killed
one
victim
prove
guilty
attempted
mass
murder
bad
aim
whether
statute
restrict
speech
necessary
light
problems
allegedly
addresses
ante
sure
relevant
tailoring
component
first
amendment
analysis
shooter
doubtless
bad
aim
also
relevant
powerfully
relevant
whether
law
really
directed
safety
access
concerns
rather
suppression
particular
type
speech
showing
law
suppresses
speech
specific
subject
applies
even
asserted
problems
present
persuasive
evidence
law
content
based
zeal
treat
speech
special
category
majority
distorts
first
amendment
also
ordinary
logic
probative
inferences
structure
act
also
indicates
rests
concerns
goals
public
safety
patient
access
healthcare
unobstructed
use
public
sidewalks
roadways
brief
respondents
already
achieved
subsection
statute
provides
criminal
penalties
ny
person
knowingly
obstructs
detains
hinders
impedes
blocks
another
person
entry
exit
reproductive
health
care
facility
majority
recognizes
provision
easy
enforce
see
ante
thus
zones
carved
subsection
add
nothing
safety
access
achieve
obviously
designed
achieve
suppression
speech
opposing
abortion
contradicting
fanciful
defense
act
fact
subsection
enacted
easily
enforceable
substitute
prior
provision
exclude
people
entirely
restricted
areas
around
abortion
clinics
rather
forbade
people
areas
approach
within
six
feet
another
person
without
person
consent
purpose
passing
leaflet
handbill
displaying
sign
engaging
oral
protest
education
counseling
person
west
majority
acknowledges
provision
modeled
colorado
law
upheld
hill
ante
case
recognized
statute
question
directed
suppression
unwelcome
speech
vindicating
hill
called
unwilling
listener
interest
avoiding
unwanted
communication
held
interest
content
neutral
provision
issue
indisputably
meant
serve
interest
protecting
citizens
supposed
right
avoid
speech
rather
hear
reason
granted
second
question
review
case
though
one
know
opinion
fails
mention
whether
hill
cut
back
cast
aside
see
pet
cert
stating
second
question
presented
hill
permits
enforcement
law
whether
hill
limited
overruled
granting
certiorari
without
reservation
majority
avoids
question
declaring
act
content
neutral
entirely
unpersuasive
grounds
concluding
statute
content
based
therefore
subject
strict
scrutiny
necessarily
conclude
hill
overruled
reasons
set
forth
dissents
case
see
scalia
kennedy
abundance
scathing
academic
commentary
describing
hill
stands
contradiction
first
amendment
protecting
people
speech
want
hear
function
first
amendment
allows
government
undertake
public
streets
sidewalks
one
final
thought
regarding
hill
argued
argued
next
case
stating
act
content
neutral
concerned
undesirable
effects
arise
isteners
reactions
speech
ante
quoting
boos
barry
brackets
original
holding
act
unconstitutional
insufficiently
tailored
safety
access
concerns
sub
silentio
perhaps
inadvertently
overruled
hill
unavoidable
implication
holding
protection
unwelcome
speech
justify
restrictions
use
public
streets
sidewalks
exemption
employees
agents
petitioners
contend
act
targets
speech
opposing
abortion
thus
constitutes
presumptively
invalid
restriction
another
reason
well
exempts
employees
agents
abortion
clinic
acting
within
scope
employment
goes
without
saying
ranting
waivers
favored
speakers
denying
disfavored
speakers
course
unconstitutional
thomas
chicago
park
opinion
sets
forth
inquiry
assessing
whether
regulation
content
based
comes
assessing
exemption
employees
agents
forgets
teaching
opinion
jumps
right
prong
asks
whether
provision
draw
distinctions
face
ante
instead
proceeds
directly
prong
see
asking
whether
exemption
represent
governmental
attempt
give
one
side
debatable
public
question
advantage
expressing
views
people
ante
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
disagree
majority
negative
answer
question
beside
point
text
statute
whatever
purposes
might
license
one
side
debate
fight
freestyle
requiring
follow
marquis
queensberry
rules
paul
serious
doubt
employees
agents
acting
within
scope
employment
near
clinic
entrances
may
indeed
often
speak
favor
abortion
right
thing
speak
opposition
message
abortion
opponents
saying
example
safe
facility
rebut
statement
see
tr
oral
arg
contrary
assumption
simply
incredible
majority
makes
attempt
establish
necessary
proposition
employees
agents
engage
nonspeech
activities
directed
suppression
antiabortion
speech
hampering
efforts
counselors
speak
prospective
clients
believe
clinic
employee
sent
escort
prospective
clients
building
seek
prevent
counselor
like
eleanor
mccullen
communicating
pull
woman
away
approaching
counselor
cover
ears
make
loud
noises
drown
counselor
pleas
points
exemption
may
allow
zones
clinic
employees
escorts
maintenance
worker
shoveling
snowy
sidewalk
security
guard
patrolling
clinic
entrance
ante
doubt
massachusetts
legislators
people
mind
whether
event
irrelevant
whatever
activity
permitted
long
statute
permits
speech
favorable
abortion
rights
excluding
antiabortion
speech
discriminates
basis
viewpoint
takes
peculiar
view
long
clinics
specifically
authorized
employees
speak
favor
abortion
presumably
impede
antiabortion
speech
viewpoint
discrimination
see
ibid
axiomatic
words
employed
statute
time
meaning
common
law
law
country
presumed
used
sense
unless
context
compels
contrary
standard
oil
phrase
scope
employment
concept
includes
range
reasonable
activities
employee
engages
carrying
employer
business
black
law
dictionary
ed
employer
need
specifically
direct
sanction
aspect
employee
conduct
qualify
see
restatement
second
agency
see
also
restatement
third
agency
comment
indeed
employee
conduct
qualify
even
employer
specifically
forbids
see
restatement
second
case
implausible
clinics
bar
escorts
engaging
sort
activity
mentioned
moreover
statute
forbids
one
side
convey
message
become
viewpoint
neutral
simply
favored
side
chooses
voluntarily
abstain
activity
statute
permits
shadow
doubt
assigned
foreseeable
conduct
clinic
employee
agent
include
speaking
favor
abortion
rights
countering
speech
people
like
petitioners
see
post
alito
concurring
judgment
indeed
majority
acknowledges
trial
record
includes
testimony
escorts
boston
clinic
expressed
views
abortion
women
accompanying
thwarted
petitioners
attempts
speak
hand
literature
women
disparaged
petitioners
various
ways
including
calling
ante
citing
app
surprise
web
site
planned
parenthood
league
massachusetts
operates
three
abortion
facilities
petitioners
attempt
counsel
women
urges
readers
become
clinic
escort
order
provide
safe
space
patients
escorting
protestors
health
center
volunteer
internship
opportunities
online
https
optlink
view
erformid
newjoblist
erformcode
visited
june
available
clerk
case
file
dangers
web
site
attributes
protestors
related
entirely
speech
safety
access
protestors
reports
hold
signs
try
speak
patients
entering
building
distribute
literature
misleading
ibid
safe
space
provided
escorts
protection
speech
going
bad
worse
majority
opinion
contends
record
us
contains
insufficient
evidence
show
escorts
actually
spoken
favor
abortion
presumably
hindered
antiabortion
speech
acting
within
scope
employment
ante
brave
new
first
amendment
test
speech
restrictions
favoring
one
viewpoint
another
content
based
unless
shown
favored
viewpoint
actually
expressed
city
ordinance
closing
park
adjoining
republican
national
convention
speakers
except
whose
remarks
approved
national
committee
thus
subject
strict
scrutiny
unless
shown
someone
given
remarks
suggest
test
conclusion
sum
act
reviewed
standard
applicable
legislation
standard
requires
regulation
represent
least
restrictive
means
furthering
compelling
government
interest
playboy
entertainment
group
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
respondents
even
attempt
argue
subsection
survives
test
see
ante
suffice
say
protecting
people
unwelcome
communications
actual
purpose
provision
compelling
state
interest
first
amendment
dead
letter
hill
scalia
dissenting
iii
narrow
tailoring
determined
act
content
based
withstand
strict
scrutiny
need
pursue
inquiry
conducted
part
iv
opinion
whether
statute
tailored
serve
significant
governmental
interest
ante
quoting
ward
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
suppose
taking
given
erroneous
conclusion
part
iii
suspect
agree
majority
legislation
narrowly
tailored
advance
interests
asserted
respondents
prefer
take
part
assembling
apparent
specious
unanimity
leave
plainly
unnecessary
erroneous
half
arguably
correct
half
analysis
majority
obvious
purpose
challenged
portion
massachusetts
reproductive
health
care
facilities
act
protect
prospective
clients
abortion
clinics
hear
speech
public
streets
sidewalks
provision
thus
unconstitutional
root
branch
saved
majority
suggests
limiting
application
single
facility
experienced
safety
access
problems
quite
obviously
addressed
concur
judgment
statute
unconstitutional
first
amendment
alito
concurring
judgment
eleanor
mccullen
et
petitioners
martha
coakley
attorney
general
massachusetts
et
al
writ
certiorari
appeals
first
circuit
june
justice
alito
concurring
judgment
agree
massachusetts
statute
issue
case
mass
laws
ch
west
violates
first
amendment
recognizes
massachusetts
law
discriminates
basis
viewpoint
unconstitutional
see
ante
believe
law
clearly
discriminates
ground
massachusetts
statute
generally
prohibits
person
entering
buffer
zone
around
abortion
clinic
clinic
business
hours
law
contains
exemption
employees
agents
facility
acting
within
scope
employment
thus
business
hours
individuals
wish
counsel
abortion
criticize
particular
clinic
may
within
buffer
zone
engage
conduct
commit
crime
see
contrast
employees
agents
clinic
may
enter
zone
engage
conduct
falls
within
scope
employment
clinic
may
direct
authorize
employee
agent
within
zone
express
favorable
views
abortion
clinic
employee
exercises
authority
employee
conduct
perfectly
lawful
short
petitioners
critics
clinic
silenced
clinic
may
authorize
employees
express
speech
support
clinic
work
consider
entirely
realistic
situation
woman
enters
buffer
zone
heads
haltingly
toward
entrance
sidewalk
counselor
petitioners
enters
buffer
zone
approaches
woman
says
doubts
abortion
let
try
answer
questions
may
clinic
give
good
information
time
clinic
employee
instructed
management
approaches
woman
says
come
inside
give
honest
answers
questions
sidewalk
counselor
clinic
employee
expressed
opposing
viewpoints
first
violated
statute
suppose
issue
abortion
safety
particular
facility
suppose
recent
report
botched
abortion
clinic
nonemployee
may
enter
buffer
zone
warn
clinic
health
record
employee
may
enter
tell
prospective
clients
clinic
safe
clear
face
massachusetts
law
discriminates
based
viewpoint
speech
favor
clinic
work
employees
agents
permitted
speech
criticizing
clinic
work
crime
blatant
viewpoint
discrimination
holds
massachusetts
law
viewpoint
neutral
also
discriminate
based
content
see
ante
treats
massachusetts
law
like
one
bans
speech
within
buffer
zone
law
content
neutral
face
circumstances
law
forbidding
speech
particular
location
content
neutral
fact
suppose
example
facially
law
enacted
purpose
suppressing
speech
particular
topic
law
content
neutral
see
turner
broadcasting
system
fcc
case
think
possible
reach
judgment
intent
massachusetts
legislature
without
taking
account
fact
law
legislature
enacted
blatantly
discriminates
based
viewpoint
light
feature
well
overbreadth
identifies
see
ante
said
based
present
record
law
content
neutral
even
exemption
clinic
employees
agents
excised
however
law
truly
content
neutral
agree
law
still
unconstitutional
ground
burdens
speech
necessary
serve
commonwealth
asserted
interests
footnotes
zone
extended
additional
feet
width
act
smaller
area
marked
however
area
legal
effect
see
mass
laws
ch
different
analysis
course
required
government
property
issue
traditional
public
forum
instead
forum
limited
use
certain
groups
dedicated
solely
discussion
certain
subjects
pleasant
grove
city
summum
less
two
weeks
instant
litigation
initiated
massachusetts
attorney
general
office
issued
guidance
letter
clarifying
application
four
exemptions
letter
interpreted
exemptions
permitting
clinic
employees
agents
municipal
employees
agents
individuals
passing
clinics
express
views
abortion
engage
partisan
speech
within
buffer
zone
app
interpretation
supports
conclusion
employee
exemption
render
act
viewpoint
based
consider
analysis
appears
broaden
scope
act
criminal
statute
rather
adopt
construction
ward
rock
racism
quoting
hoffman
estates
flipside
hoffman
estates
course
hold
peech
restrictions
favoring
one
viewpoint
another
content
based
unless
shown
favored
viewpoint
actually
expressed
post
instead
apply
uncontroversial
principle
constitutional
adjudication
plaintiff
generally
prevail
challenge
without
showing
law
fact
sufficiently
likely
unconstitutionally
applied
specifically
someone
challenges
law
viewpoint
discriminatory
clear
face
law
speakers
allowed
speak
must
show
prevented
speaking
someone
espousing
another
viewpoint
permitted
justice
scalia
decry
analysis
astonishing
quoting
sentence
explicitly
limited
challenges
treating
relevant
facial
challenges
ibid
leading
historian
noted
form
pamphlets
much
important
characteristic
writing
american
revolution
appeared
revolutionary
generation
predecessors
back
early
sixteenth
century
pamphlet
peculiar
virtues
medium
communication
seen
pamphlet
allowed
one
things
possible
form
bailyn
ideological
origins
american
revolution
amici
identify
five
localities
laws
similar
act
brief
state
new
york
et
al
amici
curiae
massachusetts
also
separate
law
prohibiting
similar
kinds
conduct
medical
facility
though
law
unlike
act
requires
explicit
notice
penalty
may
imposed
mass
laws
ch
give
approval
alternatives
discuss
post
merely
suggest
law
like
new
york
city
ordinance
principle
constitute
permissible
alternative
whether
law
pass
constitutional
muster
depend
number
factors
whether
term
harassment
authoritatively
construed
avoid
vagueness
overbreadth
problems
sort
noted
justice
scalia
find
act
narrowly
tailored
need
consider
whether
act
leaves
open
ample
alternative
channels
communication
need
consider
petitioners
overbreadth
challenge
footnotes
reiterate
challenged
provision
person
shall
knowingly
enter
remain
public
way
sidewalk
adjacent
reproductive
health
care
facility
within
radius
feet
portion
entrance
exit
driveway
facility
within
alternative
rectangular
area
mass
laws
ch
west
statute
defines
reproductive
health
care
facility
place
within
upon
grounds
hospital
abortions
offered
performed
claims
mccutcheon
declined
consider
rigorous
standard
review
applying
required
overruling
precedent
ante
hardly
distinguishes
present
case
since
discussed
later
text
conclusion
legislation
escapes
strict
scrutiny
violence
great
swath
first
amendment
jurisprudence
see
bartnicki
agree
petitioners
well
pennsylvania
analog
fact
law
general
applicability
rehnquist
dissenting
correctly
observes
law
general
brackets
original
humanitarian
law
project
section
regulates
speech
basis
content
breyer
dissenting
statute
applies
criminal
penalties
least
arguably
basis
distinctions
think
scrutinize
statute
justifications
hill
inexplicable
standard
grounds
shameful
upheld
piece
legislation
reasoning
gave
constitutional
law
symposium
professor
michael
mcconnell
response
pepperdine
rev
think
hill
difficult
case
think
simple
wrong
remarks
laurence
tribe
list
go
make
assertion
quoting
sentence
explicitly
limited
challenges
treating
relevant
facial
challenges
ante
sentence
question
appears
paragraph
immediately
following
rejection
facial
challenge
begins
different
question
turned
clinic
authorized
escorts
speak
abortion
inside
buffer
zones
ante
prior
discussion
regarding
facial
challenge
points
fact
suggestion
record
clinics
authorize
employees
speak
abortion
buffer
zones
ante
sure
paragraph
question
goes
concede
statute
constitutionality
applied
depend
upon
explicit
clinic
authorization
even
seems
wrong
saying
voluntary
action
third
party
cause
otherwise
valid
statute
violate
first
amendment
applied
seems
little
better
saying
cause
statute
violate
first
amendment
facially
statute
punishes
speaking
unless
chooses
speak
unconstitutional
facially
applied
without
reference
action