schenck
et
al
pro
choice
network
western
new
york
et
argued
october
decided
february
held
injunction
provisions
imposing
fixed
buffer
zone
limitations
constitutional
provisions
imposing
floating
buffer
zone
limitations
violate
first
amendment
pp
madsen
women
health
center
bears
many
similarities
case
many
parties
arguments
depend
application
madsen
reviews
decision
madsen
said
standard
time
place
manner
analysis
sufficiently
rigorous
evaluating
content
neutral
injunctions
restrict
speech
held
instead
test
whether
challenged
provisions
burden
speech
necessary
serve
significant
government
interest
pp
petitioners
argument
significant
governmental
interests
support
injunction
issue
rejected
given
factual
similarity
case
madsen
concludes
governmental
interests
underlying
injunction
ensuring
public
safety
order
promoting
free
flow
traffic
streets
sidewalks
protecting
property
rights
protecting
woman
freedom
seek
pregnancy
related
services
also
underlie
injunction
combination
certainly
significant
enough
justify
appropriately
tailored
injunction
secure
unimpeded
physical
access
clinics
pp
floating
buffer
zones
struck
burden
speech
necessary
serve
relevant
governmental
interests
zones
around
people
prevent
defendants
except
sidewalk
counselors
tolerated
targeted
individual
communicating
message
normal
conversational
distance
handing
leaflets
public
sidewalks
broad
prohibition
type
speech
restricted
nature
location
leafletting
commenting
matters
public
concern
classic
forms
speech
lie
heart
first
amendment
speech
public
areas
protected
public
sidewalks
prototypical
example
traditional
public
forum
see
boos
barry
although
record
abusive
conduct
sometimes
makes
prohibition
classic
speech
limited
parts
public
sidewalk
permissible
see
madsen
supra
need
decide
whether
governmental
interests
involved
ever
justify
separation
zone
measured
distancebetween
targeted
individuals
protesters
since
fact
broad
speech
prohibition
floats
renders
unsustainable
record
protesters
public
sidewalks
wish
communicate
message
targeted
individual
remain
close
possible
maintaining
acceptable
conversational
distance
must
move
individual
moves
maintaining
feet
separation
difficult
accomplish
one
respondent
clinics
bordered
foot
wide
sidewalk
lack
certainty
remain
compliance
injunction
leads
substantial
risk
much
speech
burdened
injunction
terms
prohibits
may
well
ways
effect
desired
separation
yet
provide
certainty
speech
protected
injunction
terms
burdened
strikes
floating
zones
around
people
address
constitutionality
cease
desist
provision
respecting
zones
floating
buffer
zones
around
vehicles
also
fail
madsen
test
zones
restrict
speech
simply
line
sidewalk
curb
effort
chant
shout
hold
signs
peacefully
nothing
record
district
opinion
contradicts
commonsense
notion
limited
injunction
one
keeps
protesters
away
driveways
parking
lot
entrances
streets
sufficient
ensure
drivers
confused
enter
clinic
able
gain
access
driveways
parking
lots
safely
easily
pp
fixed
buffer
zones
around
clinic
doorways
driveways
driveway
entrances
upheld
zones
necessary
ensure
people
vehicles
enter
exit
clinic
property
parking
lots
demonstrated
evidence
record
showing
tro
issued
protesters
purposefully
effectively
blocked
hindered
people
entering
exiting
doorways
driving
away
entrances
lots
sidewalk
counselors
followed
crowded
people
right
doorways
sometimes
beyond
tended
stay
doorways
shouting
individuals
managed
get
inside
defendants
harassment
local
police
made
far
certain
police
able
quickly
effectively
counteract
protesters
blocked
doorways
threatened
safety
entering
patients
employees
deference
due
district
reasonable
assessment
feet
proper
distance
ensure
access
see
madsen
supra
petitioners
various
arguments
fixed
buffer
zones
unchallenged
injunction
provisions
sufficient
ensure
access
clinics
district
first
tried
non
speech
restrictive
injunction
extraordinary
record
pervasive
lawlessness
injunction
term
demonstrating
vague
rejected
also
rejected
petitioners
contention
cease
desist
provision
limiting
sidewalk
counselors
exception
connection
fixed
buffer
zone
violates
first
amendment
limitation
must
assessed
light
fact
entire
exception
counselors
effort
enhance
petitioners
speech
rights
moreover
cease
desist
provision
content
based
simply
allows
patient
terminate
protester
right
speak
patient
disagrees
message
conveyed
counselors
remain
free
espouse
message
outside
zone
condition
freedom
espouse
within
zone
result
previous
harassment
intimidation
patients
pp
affirmed
part
reversed
part
remanded
rehnquist
delivered
opinion
unanimous
respect
parts
opinion
respect
part
stevens
scalia
kennedy
souter
thomas
ginsburg
joined
opinion
respect
parts
stevens
souter
ginsburg
breyer
joined
scalia
filed
opinion
concurring
part
dissenting
part
kennedy
thomas
joined
breyer
filed
opinion
concurring
part
dissenting
part
notice
opinion
subject
formal
revision
publication
preliminary
print
reports
readers
requested
notify
reporter
decisions
wash
ington
typographical
formal
errors
order
corrections
may
made
preliminary
print
goes
press
paul
schenck
dwight
saunders
petitioners
pro
choice
network
western
new
york
et
al
writ
certiorari
appeals
second
circuit
february
chief
justice
rehnquist
delivered
opinion
question
presented
whether
injunction
places
restrictions
demonstrations
outside
abortion
clinics
violates
first
amendment
uphold
provisions
imposing
fixed
bubble
fixed
buffer
zone
limitations
hereinafter
described
hold
provisions
imposing
floating
bubble
floating
buffer
zone
limitations
violate
first
amendment
respondents
include
three
doctors
four
medical
clinics
two
part
larger
hospital
complexes
around
rochester
buffalo
upstate
new
york
health
care
providers
perform
abortions
medical
services
facilities
eighth
respondent
pro
choice
network
western
new
york
profit
corporation
dedicated
maintaining
access
family
planning
abortion
services
september
respondents
filed
complaint
district
western
district
new
york
fifty
individuals
three
organizations
operation
rescue
project
rescue
western
new
york
project
life
rochester
complaint
alleged
defendants
consistently
engaged
illegal
blockades
illegal
conduct
facilities
western
district
new
york
abortions
performed
convenience
refer
facilities
clinics
throughout
complaint
alleged
one
federal
six
state
causes
action
conspiracy
deprive
women
seeking
abortions
family
planning
services
equal
protection
laws
violation
rev
stat
discrimination
harassment
women
seeking
abortions
family
planning
services
violation
civ
rights
law
mckinney
exec
law
mckinney
trespass
tortious
interference
business
tortious
harassment
false
imprisonment
intentional
infliction
emo
tional
harm
complaint
alleged
large
blockade
planned
september
requested
issue
temporary
restraining
order
tro
stop
complaint
also
sought
permanent
injunction
damages
complaint
filed
clinics
subjected
numerous
large
scale
blockades
protesters
march
stand
kneel
sit
lie
parking
lot
driveways
doorways
conduct
blocked
hindered
cars
entering
clinic
parking
lots
patients
doctors
nurses
clinic
employees
entering
clinics
addition
large
scale
blockades
smaller
groups
protesters
consistently
attempted
stop
disrupt
clinic
operations
protesters
trespassed
onto
clinic
parking
lots
even
entered
clinics
trespassers
remained
outside
clinics
crowded
around
cars
milled
around
doorways
driveway
entrances
effort
block
hinder
access
clinics
protesters
sometimes
threw
top
hoods
cars
crowdedaround
cars
attempted
turn
parking
lot
driveways
protesters
clinic
property
handed
literature
talked
people
entering
clinics
especially
women
believed
arriving
abortions
effort
persuade
abortion
immoral
sometimes
protesters
used
aggressive
techniques
varying
levels
belligerence
getting
close
women
entering
clinics
shouting
faces
surrounding
crowding
yelling
women
entering
clinics
jostling
grabbing
pushing
shoving
women
attempted
enter
clinics
male
female
clinic
volunteers
attempted
escort
patients
past
protesters
clinics
sometimes
elbowed
grabbed
spit
sometimes
escorts
pushed
back
protesters
remained
doorways
patients
entered
clinics
blocking
others
entering
exiting
sidewalks
outside
clinics
protesters
called
sidewalk
counselors
used
similar
methods
counselors
walk
alongside
targeted
women
headed
toward
clinics
handing
literature
talking
attempt
persuade
get
abortion
unfortunately
women
continued
toward
clinics
respond
positively
counselors
peaceful
efforts
persuasion
often
devolved
face
yelling
sometimes
pushing
shoving
grabbing
men
accompanied
women
attempting
enter
clinics
often
became
upset
aggressive
sidewalk
counseling
sometimes
restrained
always
successfully
fighting
counselors
district
found
local
police
unable
respond
effectively
protests
number
reasons
protests
constant
overwhelming
police
resources
police
arrived
protesters
simply
dispersed
returned
later
prosecution
arrested
protesters
difficult
patients
often
reluctant
cooperate
fear
makingtheir
identity
public
convicted
deterred
returning
engage
unlawful
conduct
addition
found
defendants
harassed
police
officers
verbally
mail
including
deputy
police
chief
also
harassed
people
testified
protesters
invoke
legal
process
protesters
testified
deputy
police
chief
made
difficult
job
pro
choice
network
western
project
rescue
western
supp
wdny
see
also
substantial
uncontradicted
evidence
defendants
activities
intended
fact
prevent
hinder
local
police
protecting
right
women
choose
abortion
september
three
days
respondents
filed
complaint
one
day
scheduled
large
scale
blockade
district
issued
tro
parties
stipulated
tro
might
remain
force
decision
respondents
motion
preliminary
injunction
pertinent
part
tro
enjoined
defendants
physically
blockading
clinics
physically
abusing
tortiously
harassing
anyone
entering
leaving
clinics
demonstrating
within
feet
person
entering
leaving
clinics
exception
foot
buffer
zone
around
people
tro
allowed
two
sidewalk
counselors
conversation
nonthreatening
nature
individuals
entering
leaving
clinic
individuals
indicated
want
counseling
however
counselors
cease
desist
counseling
first
defendants
complied
tro
holding
peaceful
demonstration
rather
scheduled
blockade
subsequently
stipulated
physical
blockades
enjoined
conducted
blockades
issuance
tro
issuance
preliminary
injunction
months
later
defendants
however
continued
engage
protests
district
labeled
constructive
blockades
well
sidewalk
counseling
constructive
blockades
consisted
demonstrating
picketing
around
entrances
clinics
harassing
patients
staff
entering
leaving
clinics
included
many
protest
elements
described
including
attempts
intimidate
impede
cars
entering
parking
lots
congregating
driveway
entrances
crowding
around
yelling
grabbing
pushing
shoving
people
entering
leaving
clinics
purpose
constructive
blockades
physical
blockades
prevent
dissuade
patients
entering
clinic
ibid
clinic
volunteer
escorts
testified
protests
much
quieter
calmer
smaller
first
month
tro
issued
protests
returned
prior
intensity
thereafter
including
aggressive
sidewalk
counseling
occasional
shoving
elbowing
trespassing
clinic
buildings
continue
counseling
patients
blocking
doorways
driveways
alleging
project
rescue
five
individual
defendants
including
petitioner
schenck
breached
tro
five
separate
occasions
late
october
december
respondents
sought
four
contempt
citations
fifth
contempt
citation
incident
sought
petitioner
schenck
another
individualdefendant
throughout
district
held
days
hearings
contempt
proceedings
issued
opinions
concluding
five
six
incidents
justified
finding
civil
contempt
february
hearing
additional
days
testimony
district
issued
injunction
parts
challenged
relevant
provisions
set
forth
margin
although
injunctionlargely
tracked
tro
significant
changes
first
tro
banned
demonstrating
within
fifteen
feet
person
entering
leaving
clinics
injunction
broadly
banned
demonstrating
within
fifteen
feet
either
side
edge
front
doorways
doorway
entrances
parking
lot
entrances
driveways
driveway
entrances
facilities
fixed
buffer
zones
within
fifteen
feet
person
vehicle
seeking
access
leaving
facilities
floating
buffer
zones
addition
injunction
clarified
cease
desist
provision
specifying
sidewalk
counselors
entered
buffer
zones
required
cease
desist
counseling
retreat
feet
people
counseling
remain
outside
boundaries
buffer
zones
opinion
accompanying
preliminary
injunction
district
stated
relevant
inquiry
whether
respondents
established
irreparably
harmed
injunction
granted
ii
likely
succeed
merits
held
irreparable
harm
requirement
met
women
denied
unimpeded
access
clinics
compensated
merely
money
damages
injunctive
relief
alone
assure
women
unimpeded
access
clinics
also
held
respondents
likely
succeed
least
three
claims
first
relying
new
york
state
national
organization
women
terry
cert
denied
held
women
seeking
abortions
constituted
protected
class
constitutional
right
travel
choose
abortion
likely
infringed
defendants
violation
second
held
conduct
infringed
class
women
constitutional
rights
clearly
violates
civ
rights
law
finally
heldthat
light
overwhelming
evidence
defendants
repeatedly
trespassed
upon
clinics
property
past
may
continue
trespass
future
respondents
shown
likelihood
success
trespass
claim
already
found
likelihood
success
claims
chose
address
respondents
four
state
law
claims
analyzing
defendants
assertion
injunction
violated
first
amendment
right
free
speech
applied
standard
time
place
manner
analysis
asking
whether
speech
restrictions
injunction
content
neutral
ii
narrowly
tailored
serve
significant
government
interest
iii
left
open
ample
alternative
channels
communication
information
citing
frisby
schultz
held
injunction
content
neutral
merely
restricts
volume
location
timing
harassing
intimidating
nature
defendants
expressive
speech
held
injunction
served
three
significant
governmental
interests
public
safety
ensuring
abortions
performed
safely
ensuring
woman
constitutional
rights
travel
interstate
choose
abortion
sacrificed
interest
defendants
first
amendment
rights
narrow
tailoring
explained
foot
buffer
zones
around
entrances
around
people
vehicles
seeking
access
necessary
ensure
people
vehicles
seeking
access
clinics
impeded
able
determine
readily
entrances
located
added
buffer
zones
also
provide
benefit
prevent
ing
defendants
crowding
patients
invading
personal
space
ibid
explained
cease
desist
provision
allowing
two
sidewalk
counselors
inside
buffer
zones
requiring
cease
desist
counseling
counselee
asked
left
alone
exception
buffer
zones
attempt
accommodate
fully
defendants
first
amendment
rights
ibid
held
provision
necessary
order
protect
right
people
approaching
entering
facilities
left
alone
finally
held
injunction
left
open
ample
alternative
channels
communication
defendants
still
picket
carry
signs
pray
sing
chant
full
view
people
going
clinics
district
issued
opinion
held
bray
alexandria
women
health
clinic
women
seeking
abortion
protected
class
light
bray
district
dismissed
respondents
claim
leave
file
amended
cause
action
pro
choice
network
western
project
rescue
western
supp
wdny
decided
exercise
pendent
jurisdiction
respondents
remaining
causesof
action
six
state
claims
regardless
ultimate
disposition
claim
deciding
noted
preliminary
injunction
grounded
claim
two
state
law
claims
civ
rights
law
claim
trespass
claim
well
explained
judicial
economy
convenience
fairness
suggested
keep
case
since
expanded
substantial
resources
case
involvement
case
ongoing
citing
contempt
motions
filed
respondents
criminal
contempt
charges
brought
six
individuals
protests
civil
criminal
contempt
motions
filed
petitioners
two
individual
defendants
appealed
appeals
second
circuit
case
appeal
decided
madsen
women
health
center
case
also
involved
effect
injunction
expressive
activities
antiabortion
protesters
discuss
madsen
greater
depth
part
infra
held
standard
time
place
manner
analysis
sufficiently
rigorous
comes
evaluating
content
neutral
injunctions
restrict
speech
test
instead
held
whether
challenged
provisions
injunction
burden
speech
necessary
serve
significant
government
interest
applying
madsen
panel
appeals
reversed
district
split
decision
appeals
heard
case
en
banc
affirmed
district
divided
vote
two
opinions
garnered
majority
judge
oakes
lead
opinion
joined
eight
judges
affirmed
reasons
closely
track
reasoning
district
concurring
opinion
judge
winter
joined
nine
judges
affirmed
primarilyon
ground
protesters
expressive
activities
protected
first
amendment
district
injunction
reasonable
response
protesters
conduct
granted
certiorari
petitioners
challenge
three
aspects
injunction
floating
foot
buffer
zones
around
people
vehicles
seeking
access
clinics
ii
fixed
foot
buffer
zones
around
clinic
doorways
driveways
parking
lot
entrances
iii
cease
desist
provision
forces
sidewalk
counselors
inside
buffer
zones
retreat
feet
person
counseled
person
indicates
desire
counseled
madsen
bears
many
similarities
case
many
parties
arguments
depend
application
madsen
review
determination
case
florida
state
issued
permanent
injunction
enjoining
specified
organizations
individuals
blocking
interfering
clinic
access
physically
abusing
people
entering
leaving
clinic
six
months
injunction
issued
found
protesters
still
impeded
access
demonstrating
street
driveways
sidewalk
counselors
approached
entering
vehicles
effort
hand
literature
occupants
face
evidence
issued
broader
injunction
enjoined
defendant
protesters
physically
abusing
grabbing
intimidating
harassing
touching
pushing
shoving
crowding
assaulting
anyone
entering
leaving
clinic
congregating
picketing
patrolling
demonstrating
entering
portion
public
right
way
private
property
within
feet
property
line
clinic
approaching
anyone
seeking
services
clinic
within
feet
clinic
unless
person
indicates
desire
communicate
making
noise
displaying
image
heard
seen
inside
clinic
determining
injunction
prior
restraint
content
neutral
held
proper
test
evaluating
content
neutral
injunctions
first
amendment
whether
challenged
provisions
injunction
burden
speech
necessary
serve
significant
government
interest
florida
concluded
injunction
based
number
governmental
interests
protecting
woman
freedom
seek
pregnancy
related
services
ensuring
public
safety
order
promoting
free
flow
traffic
streets
sidewalks
protecting
property
rights
protecting
medical
privacy
patients
whose
psychological
physical
well
threatened
held
captive
medical
circumstance
held
combination
interests
quite
sufficient
justify
appropriately
tailored
injunction
protect
unimpeded
access
clinic
way
public
streets
sidewalks
held
injunction
provisions
burdened
speech
necessary
serve
interests
others
upheld
foot
buffer
zone
applied
street
sidewalks
driveways
way
ensuring
access
clinic
explained
trial
options
protect
access
clinic
allowing
protesters
remain
sidewalks
clinic
driveway
valid
option
past
conduct
allowing
stand
street
obviously
impractical
addition
stated
deference
must
given
state
familiarity
thefacts
background
dispute
parties
even
heightened
review
citing
milk
wagon
drivers
meadowmoor
dairies
struck
foot
approach
zone
around
clinic
however
stating
difficult
justify
prohibition
uninvited
approaches
regardless
peaceful
contact
may
absent
evidence
protesters
speech
independently
proscribable
fighting
words
threats
infused
violence
indistinguishable
threat
physical
harm
see
milk
wagon
drivers
provision
stand
general
matter
indicated
public
debate
citizens
must
tolerate
insulting
even
outrageous
speech
order
provide
adequate
breathing
space
freedoms
protected
first
amendment
boos
barry
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
consent
requirement
alone
invalidates
provision
burdens
speech
necessary
prevent
intimidation
ensure
access
clinic
petitioners
first
argue
significant
governmental
interests
support
injunction
argument
goes
follows
seven
causes
action
respondents
complaint
one
left
standing
district
recent
opinion
respondents
trespass
claim
trespass
cause
action
support
injunction
banning
trespass
nothing
else
thus
injunction
provisions
banning
demonstrating
within
feet
people
cars
entrances
overbroad
first
argument
factually
incorrect
trespass
claim
one
left
standing
point
opinion
issuing
preliminary
injunction
district
held
conduct
satisfied
elements
claim
federal
law
also
satisfied
elements
claim
state
law
decision
bray
district
dismissed
respondents
claim
petitioners
argue
district
necessarily
implicitly
dismissed
claim
well
since
two
claims
based
conduct
opinion
bray
attempt
construe
statute
fact
certain
conduct
state
claim
necessarily
mean
conduct
state
claim
state
law
uses
similar
language
since
state
courts
may
course
choose
construe
law
broadly
narrowly
federal
counterpart
event
language
two
statutes
noticeably
different
see
supra
thus
dismissal
claim
light
bray
also
act
dismissal
respondents
claim
confirmed
district
comment
post
bray
opinion
preliminary
injunction
grounded
claim
two
state
law
claims
well
although
petitioners
contend
cause
action
longer
valid
simply
claim
longer
valid
argument
reject
contend
district
erred
concluding
independent
matter
respondents
likely
succeed
trespass
claims
see
brief
petitioners
injunction
terms
clearly
crafted
remedy
violations
injunction
tailored
respondents
claims
relief
may
nonetheless
violate
first
amendment
making
first
amendment
challenge
petitioners
focus
solely
interests
asserted
respondents
complaint
assessing
first
amendment
challenge
looks
private
claims
asserted
complaint
also
inquires
governmental
interests
protected
injunction
may
include
interest
public
safety
order
madsen
milk
wagon
drivers
injunction
madsen
injunction
supported
governmental
interest
madsen
permissible
move
protesters
sidewalk
side
street
part
options
block
free
flow
traffic
streets
sidewalks
district
cited
public
safety
one
interests
justifying
injunction
certainly
reasonable
conclusion
dangerous
situation
created
interaction
cars
protesters
fights
threatened
sometimes
develop
even
though
governmental
interest
public
safety
clearly
valid
interest
madsen
plaintiffs
neither
case
pleaded
claim
threat
public
safety
indeed
strange
concept
since
plaintiff
customarily
allegesviolations
private
rights
public
safety
expresses
public
right
enforced
government
criminal
laws
otherwise
thus
fact
threat
public
safety
listed
anywhere
respondents
complaint
claim
preclude
relying
significant
governmental
interest
public
safety
assessing
petitioners
first
amendment
argument
given
factual
similarity
case
madsen
conclude
governmental
interests
underlying
injunction
madsen
ensuring
public
safety
order
promoting
free
flow
traffic
streets
sidewalks
protecting
property
rights
protecting
woman
freedom
seek
pregnancy
related
services
also
underlie
injunction
combination
certainly
significant
enough
justify
appropriately
tailored
injunction
secure
unimpeded
physical
access
clinics
strike
floating
buffer
zones
around
people
entering
leaving
clinics
theyburden
speech
necessary
serve
relevant
governmental
interests
floating
buffer
zones
prevent
defendants
except
two
sidewalk
counselors
tolerated
targeted
individual
communicating
message
normal
conversational
distance
handing
leaflets
people
entering
leaving
clinics
walking
public
sidewalks
broad
prohibition
type
speech
restricted
nature
location
leafletting
commenting
matters
public
concern
classic
forms
speech
lie
heart
first
amendment
speech
public
areas
protected
public
sidewalks
prototypical
example
traditional
public
forum
see
boos
barry
grace
hand
us
record
shows
physically
abusive
conduct
harassment
police
hampered
law
enforcement
tendency
even
peaceful
conversations
devolve
aggressive
sometimes
violent
conduct
situations
record
abusive
conduct
makes
prohibition
classic
speech
limited
parts
public
sidewalk
permissible
see
part
infra
madsen
need
decide
whether
governmental
interests
involved
ever
justify
sort
zone
separation
individuals
entering
clinics
protesters
measured
distance
two
hold
broad
prohibition
speech
floats
sustained
record
since
buffer
zone
floats
protesters
public
sidewalks
wish
communicate
message
incoming
outgoing
patient
clinic
employee
ii
remain
close
possible
maintaining
acceptable
conversational
distance
individual
must
move
individual
moves
maintaining
feet
separation
difficult
accomplishat
instance
gyn
womenservices
clinic
buffalo
one
respondent
clinics
sidewalk
outside
clinic
feet
wide
means
protesters
wish
walk
alongside
individual
entering
leaving
clinic
pushed
street
unless
individual
walks
straight
line
outer
edges
sidewalk
protesters
presumably
walk
feet
behind
individual
feet
front
individual
walking
backwards
faced
problem
watching
individuals
entering
leaving
clinic
heading
opposite
way
individual
targeted
clinic
escorts
leaving
clinic
pick
incoming
patients
entering
clinic
drop
quite
difficult
protester
wishes
engage
peaceful
expressive
activities
know
remain
compliance
injunction
lack
certainty
leads
substantial
risk
much
speech
burdened
injunction
terms
prohibits
attempts
stand
feet
someone
entering
leaving
clinic
communicate
message
certainly
protected
face
injunction
hazardous
one
wishes
remain
compliance
injunction
sincethere
may
well
ways
effect
separation
yet
provide
certainty
speech
protected
injunction
terms
burdened
conclude
floating
buffer
zones
burden
speech
necessary
serve
relevant
governmental
interests
strike
floating
buffer
zones
address
constitutionality
cease
desist
provision
allows
sidewalk
counselors
within
buffer
zones
likewise
strike
floating
buffer
zones
around
vehicles
nothing
record
district
opinion
contradicts
commonsense
notion
limited
injunction
keeps
protesters
away
driveways
parking
lot
entrances
fixed
buffer
zones
streets
instance
sufficient
ensure
drivers
confused
enter
clinic
able
gain
access
driveways
parking
lots
safely
easily
contrast
foot
floating
buffer
zones
restrict
speech
simply
line
sidewalk
curb
effort
chant
shout
hold
signs
peacefully
therefore
conclude
floating
buffer
zones
around
vehicles
burden
speech
necessary
serve
relevant
governmental
interests
uphold
fixed
buffer
zones
around
doorways
driveways
driveway
entrances
buffer
zones
necessary
ensure
people
vehicles
trying
enter
exit
clinic
property
clinic
parking
lots
madsen
record
shows
protesters
purposefully
effectively
blocked
hindered
people
entering
exiting
clinic
doorways
driving
away
clinic
entrances
driving
clinic
parking
lots
based
conduct
tro
issued
district
entitled
conclude
way
ensure
access
move
back
demonstrations
away
driveways
parking
lot
entrances
similarly
sidewalk
counselors
tro
followed
crowded
people
right
doorways
clinics
sometimesbeyond
tended
stay
doorways
shouting
individuals
managed
get
inside
addition
district
found
defendants
harassment
local
police
made
far
certain
police
able
quickly
effectively
counteract
protesters
blocked
doorways
threatened
safety
entering
patients
employees
based
conduct
district
entitled
conclude
protesters
allowed
close
entrances
continue
right
entrance
way
ensure
access
move
protesters
away
doorways
although
one
might
quibble
whether
feet
great
small
distance
goal
ensure
access
defer
district
reasonable
assessment
number
feet
necessary
keep
entrances
clear
see
madsen
ome
deference
must
given
state
familiarity
facts
background
dispute
parties
even
heightened
review
petitioners
claim
unchallenged
provisions
injunction
sufficient
ensure
access
pointingto
bans
trespassing
excessive
noise
blocking
impeding
obstructing
access
clinics
claim
light
provisions
effect
ban
demonstrating
within
fixed
buffer
zone
ban
peaceful
nonobstructive
demonstrations
public
sidewalks
rights
way
brief
petitioners
argument
however
ignores
record
case
based
defendants
past
conduct
district
entitled
conclude
defendants
allowed
within
feet
clinic
entrances
merely
engage
stationary
nonobstructive
demonstrations
continue
done
aggressively
follow
crowd
individuals
right
clinic
door
refuse
move
purposefully
mill
around
parking
lot
entrances
effort
impede
block
progress
cars
defendants
harassment
police
hampered
ability
police
respond
quickly
problem
prophylactic
measure
even
appropriate
cf
burson
freeman
upholding
foot
campaign
zone
around
polling
places
intimidation
interference
laws
fall
short
serving
state
compelling
interests
deal
blatant
specific
attempts
impede
elections
moreover
law
enforcement
officers
generally
barred
state
law
vicinity
polls
avoid
appearance
coercion
electoral
process
many
acts
interference
go
undetected
undetected
less
blatant
acts
may
nonetheless
drive
voter
away
remedial
action
taken
citations
omitted
ban
blocking
impeding
obstructing
access
therefore
insufficient
solve
problem
fixed
buffer
zone
necessary
restriction
defendants
demonstrations
petitioners
also
argue
madsen
fixed
buffer
zones
invalid
district
couldnot
impose
speech
restrictive
injunction
tro
without
first
trying
non
speech
restrictive
injunction
trial
madsen
madsen
simply
stated
failure
initial
injunction
accomplish
purpose
may
taken
consideration
determining
constitutionality
later
injunction
fact
district
tro
included
speech
restrictive
provision
certainly
mean
subsequent
injunction
automatically
invalid
since
uphold
injunction
madsen
standard
without
consideration
present
petitioners
argument
fails
finally
petitioners
make
several
arguments
may
quickly
refuted
argue
unlike
madsen
extraordinary
record
pervasive
lawlessness
brief
petitioners
buffer
zones
therefore
unnecessary
explained
review
record
convinces
us
defendants
conduct
indeed
extraordinary
based
conduct
district
entitled
conclude
keeping
defendants
away
entrances
necessary
ensure
access
petitioners
also
argue
term
demonstrating
vague
injunction
read
whole
see
grayned
city
rockford
believe
people
ordinary
intelligence
certainly
defendants
whose
demonstrations
led
litigation
first
place
given
reasonable
opportunity
know
prohibited
petitioners
also
contend
cease
desist
provision
limits
exception
sidewalk
counselors
connection
fixed
buffer
zone
contrary
first
amendment
doubt
district
reason
including
provision
protect
right
people
approaching
entering
facilities
left
alone
accurately
reflects
first
amendment
jurisprudence
area
madsensustained
injunction
designed
secure
physical
access
clinic
basis
generalized
right
left
alone
public
street
sidewalk
said
madsen
quoting
boos
barry
general
matter
indicated
public
debate
citizens
must
tolerate
insulting
even
outrageous
speech
order
provide
adequate
breathing
space
freedoms
protected
first
amendment
earlier
noted
entire
exception
sidewalk
counselors
effort
enhance
petitioners
speech
rights
see
supra
cease
desist
limitation
must
assessed
light
petitioners
amici
attack
cease
desist
provision
accompanying
exception
sidewalk
counselors
content
based
allows
clinic
patient
terminate
protester
right
speak
based
among
reasons
patient
disagreement
message
conveyed
madsen
held
injunction
case
content
based
even
though
directed
abortion
protesters
abortion
protesters
done
acts
enjoined
district
found
sidewalk
counselors
defendants
ha
arrested
one
occasion
harassment
yet
persist
harassing
intimidating
patients
patient
escorts
medical
staff
counselors
remain
free
espouse
message
outside
foot
buffer
zone
condition
freedom
espouse
within
buffer
zone
result
previous
harassment
intimidation
patients
judgment
appeals
affirmed
part
reversed
part
case
remanded
proceedings
consistent
opinion
ordered
paul
schenck
dwight
saunders
petitioners
pro
choice
network
western
new
york
et
al
writ
certiorari
appeals
second
circuit
february
justice
scalia
justice
kennedy
instead
evaluating
injunction
us
basis
reasons
issued
today
postulates
reasons
might
justified
pronounces
never
determined
reasons
adequate
contrary
settled
practice
governing
appellate
review
injunctions
indeed
actions
committed
law
initial
factfinding
predictive
policy
judgment
entity
appellate
see
sec
chenery
opinion
also
claims
judiciary
prerogative
never
heard
power
render
decrees
view
justified
concerns
public
safety
though
justified
need
remedy
grievance
subject
lawsuit
dissent
important
holding
today
opinion
tucked
away
seeming
detail
cease
desist
discussion
penultimate
paragraph
analysis
right
free
unwelcomespeech
public
streets
seeking
entrance
exit
abortion
clinics
ante
said
madsen
women
health
center
quoting
boos
barry
general
matter
indicated
public
debate
citizens
must
tolerate
insulting
even
outrageous
speech
order
provide
adequate
breathing
space
freedoms
protected
first
amendment
ibid
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
district
case
like
appeals
believed
right
free
unwanted
speech
validity
district
action
review
assessed
without
taking
belief
account
erroneous
view
constituted
remediable
harm
shaped
district
injunction
impossible
reverse
central
point
yet
maintain
district
framed
injunction
burden
speech
necessary
madsen
women
health
center
protect
legitimate
governmental
interests
district
justified
fixed
buffer
provision
injunction
two
separate
grounds
apparently
tied
different
feature
provision
first
said
fixed
buffer
zone
necessary
ensure
people
seeking
access
clinics
impeded
pro
choice
network
western
new
york
project
rescue
western
new
york
supp
wdny
second
clear
zones
prevent
defendants
crowding
patients
invading
personal
space
ibid
thus
fixed
buffer
dual
purpose
order
prevent
physical
obstruction
access
excluded
crowds
protesters
foot
zone
around
clinic
entrances
permitting
two
nonobstructive
sidewalk
counselors
enter
zone
allowing
small
number
protesters
common
practice
picketing
injunctions
mineworkers
bagwell
course
required
practice
necessary
see
madsen
supra
second
purpose
fixed
buffer
provision
purpose
justified
requirement
even
two
nonobstruc
tive
sidewalk
counselors
cease
desist
targeted
person
wish
hear
assure
personal
space
public
streets
district
described
next
paragraph
order
protect
right
people
approaching
entering
facilities
left
alone
terms
injunction
cease
desist
provision
make
attempt
conceal
fact
supposed
right
left
alone
right
unobstructed
access
clinics
basis
provision
one
required
accept
listen
sidewalk
counseling
anyone
group
persons
sought
counseled
wants
counseling
wants
leave
walk
away
shall
absolute
right
event
persons
seeking
counsel
person
group
persons
shall
cease
desist
counseling
shall
thereafter
governed
provisions
injunction
pertaining
demonstrating
within
fifteen
feet
persons
seeking
access
leaving
facility
preliminary
injunction
paragraph
emphasis
added
th
cease
desist
provision
necessary
order
protect
right
people
approaching
entering
facilities
left
alone
defendants
argue
sidewalk
counseling
occurs
public
sidewalk
forced
cease
communicating
message
audience
may
unwilling
hear
however
rejects
argument
evidence
adduced
hearings
clearly
shows
even
women
seeking
access
clinics
signal
desire
left
alone
defendants
continue
follow
right
alongside
persist
communicating
message
omen
seeking
access
plaintiffs
facilities
practical
matter
escape
defendants
message
cease
desist
provision
advances
values
marketplace
ideas
permitting
listeners
exercise
autonomy
make
determinations
among
competing
ideas
women
seeking
access
one
clinics
made
determination
listen
defendants
message
defendants
must
respect
choice
emphasis
added
asserts
carefully
selected
words
district
entitled
conclude
way
ensure
access
move
back
demonstrations
ante
emphasis
added
district
entitled
conclude
record
feasible
way
shield
individuals
within
fixed
buffer
zone
unprotected
conduct
keep
entire
area
clear
defendant
protesters
ante
emphasis
added
lest
guarded
terminology
thought
accidental
yet
third
time
based
defendants
conduct
district
entitled
conclude
way
ensure
access
move
protesters
away
doorways
ante
first
emphasis
added
second
original
prior
question
whether
entitled
conclude
question
whether
conclude
business
never
used
making
conclusions
trial
permissibly
reached
questions
involving
assessments
fact
credibility
future
conduct
affirming
basis
posited
conclusions
whether
trial
fact
arrived
even
ordinary
cases
doubly
true
review
trial
order
imposing
prior
restraint
upon
speech
said
naacp
claiborne
hardware
decides
impose
speech
restrictive
injunction
conclusions
reaches
must
supported
findings
adequatelydisclose
ir
evidentiary
basis
carefully
identify
impact
defendants
unlawful
conduct
recognize
importance
avoiding
imposition
punishment
constitutionally
protected
activity
candidly
concedes
nonexistent
right
left
alone
underlay
district
imposition
cease
desist
provision
ante
appears
grasp
however
decisive
import
concession
district
think
necessary
exclude
demonstrators
buffer
zone
means
preventing
physical
obstruction
clinic
entrances
violations
law
faux
violation
intruding
upon
speech
targets
private
space
thus
statements
district
entitled
conclude
speculative
fatal
enough
positively
contrary
record
district
conclude
permitting
demonstrators
within
buffer
zone
perfectly
acceptable
except
infringe
clinic
employees
patrons
right
free
unwanted
speech
public
streets
fact
district
expressly
stated
future
found
complete
ban
speech
within
buffer
zone
necessary
impose
one
grasp
relevance
assertions
admitting
two
counselors
buffer
zone
effort
enhance
petitioners
speech
rights
ante
effort
bend
backwards
accommodate
defendants
speech
rights
ante
cease
desist
limitation
must
assessed
light
ante
first
amendment
jurisprudence
stood
anything
courts
obligation
enhance
speech
rights
duty
bend
backwards
rights
principle
reaffirmed
madsen
requires
judicial
injunction
speech
burden
speech
necessary
serve
significant
government
interest
madsen
emphasis
added
thus
situation
confronting
district
permitted
accommodation
petitioners
speech
rights
demanded
effort
recharacterize
responsibility
special
care
imposed
first
amendment
sort
judicial
gratuity
perhaps
alarming
concept
opinion
contains
much
alarmed
disagree
facile
rejection
argument
cause
action
properly
found
support
present
injunction
petitioners
contend
cause
action
conceivably
support
injunction
trespass
claim
support
restrictions
issue
designed
district
stated
prevent
obstruction
access
invasion
personal
space
rather
prevent
trespass
responds
pointing
case
contains
nontrespass
claim
civ
rights
law
mckinney
provides
person
shall
sex
subjected
discrimination
civil
rights
harassment
exercise
thereof
person
true
enough
seems
clear
imaginative
state
law
claim
support
preliminary
injunction
probability
success
merits
see
wright
miller
kane
federal
practice
procedure
ed
put
mildly
far
apparent
seeking
prevent
men
women
aborting
male
female
human
fetuses
constitutes
discrimination
basis
sex
moreover
reasoningwhich
led
district
conclude
otherwise
specifically
rejected
district
wrote
demonstrated
likelihood
success
merits
federal
claim
plaintiffs
also
definition
demonstrated
likelihood
success
claim
civ
rights
law
subsequently
however
opinion
bray
alexandria
women
health
clinic
held
claims
sort
issue
constitute
discrimination
basis
sex
since
also
far
able
determine
decision
new
york
saying
constitute
sex
discrimination
basis
district
concluded
affirm
chance
success
claim
anything
long
shot
proceeds
make
much
significant
point
injunction
speech
may
upheld
even
justified
basis
interests
asserted
plaintiff
long
serves
public
safety
assessing
first
amendment
challenge
inquires
governmental
interests
protected
injunction
may
include
interest
public
safety
order
district
cited
public
safety
one
interests
justifying
injunction
fact
threat
topublic
safety
listed
anywhere
respondents
complaint
claim
preclude
relying
significant
governmental
interest
public
safety
assessing
petitioners
first
amendment
argument
ante
wonderful
expansion
judicial
power
rather
courts
limited
according
relief
justified
complaints
brought
today
announces
complaint
gives
addition
ancillary
power
decree
may
necessary
protect
plaintiff
public
interest
every
private
suit
makes
district
judge
sort
one
man
committee
public
safety
precedent
novel
dangerous
proposition
madsen
says
permissible
move
protesters
sidewalk
side
street
part
options
block
free
flow
traffic
streets
sidewalks
ante
see
also
madsen
acknowledging
madsen
remedial
options
eliminated
conflict
considerations
public
safety
entirely
different
asserting
today
public
safety
provide
part
justification
remedy
case
cited
milk
wagon
drivers
meadow
moor
dairies
ante
meadowmoor
upheld
injunction
union
intimidation
storekeepers
public
interest
demanded
storekeepers
customers
plaintiff
dairy
purpose
effect
intimidation
harm
state
federal
systems
specific
entity
charged
responsibility
initiating
action
guard
public
safety
called
executive
branch
public
safety
threatened
branch
empowered
invoking
judicial
action
means
provide
protection
judicial
branch
hitherto
thought
powerless
act
except
invited
someone
one
reasons
thought
least
dangerous
political
rights
onstitution
take
active
resolution
whatever
may
truly
said
neither
force
merely
judgment
federalist
beloff
ed
contrary
fundamental
principles
separation
powers
district
decree
measures
eliminate
obstruction
traffic
lawsuit
established
nothing
trespass
today
opinion
makes
destructive
inroad
upon
first
amendment
law
holding
validity
injunction
speech
determined
appellate
basis
issuing
might
reasonably
found
necessity
rather
basis
fact
found
makes
destructive
inroad
upon
separation
powers
holding
injunction
may
contain
measures
justified
public
interest
apart
remediation
legal
wrong
subject
complaint
insofar
first
point
concerned
might
properly
upheld
fixed
buffer
zone
without
cease
desist
provision
since
district
evidently
conclude
proper
factual
support
view
limiting
protesters
two
necessary
prevent
repetition
obstruction
access
occurred
past
even
limited
injunction
invalidated
second
point
fact
cause
action
related
obstruction
access
properly
found
support
injunction
accordingly
dissent
judgment
upholding
fixed
buffer
zone
reverse
decision
appeals
entirety
footnotes
although
tro
preliminary
injunction
cease
desist
provision
triggered
whenever
individual
wants
counseling
district
construed
provision
apply
targeted
person
group
personsindicates
either
verbally
non
verbally
wish
counseled
see
also
respondents
filed
contempt
motions
district
issued
preliminary
injunction
since
concerned
propriety
injunction
consider
evidence
issued
injunction
defendants
officers
directors
agents
representatives
defendants
persons
whomsoever
known
unknown
acting
behalf
concert
receiving
actual
constructive
notice
order
enjoined
restrained
manner
means
trespassing
sitting
blocking
impeding
obstructing
access
ingress
egress
facility
including
limited
parking
lots
parking
lot
entrances
driveways
driveway
entrances
abortions
performed
western
district
new
york
demonstrating
within
fifteen
feet
either
side
edge
front
doorways
doorway
entrances
parking
lot
entrances
driveways
driveway
entrances
facilities
within
fifteen
feet
person
vehicle
seeking
access
leaving
facilities
except
form
demonstrating
known
sidewalk
counseling
two
persons
specified
paragraph
shall
allowed
physically
abusing
grabbing
touching
pushing
shoving
crowding
persons
entering
leaving
working
using
services
facility
abortions
performed
provided
however
sidewalk
counseling
consisting
conversation
non
threatening
nature
two
people
person
group
persons
seeking
counsel
shall
prohibited
also
provided
one
required
accept
listen
sidewalk
counseling
anyone
group
persons
sought
counseled
wants
counseling
wants
leave
walk
away
shall
absolute
right
event
persons
seeking
counsel
personor
group
persons
shall
cease
desist
counseling
shall
thereafter
governed
provisions
paragraph
pertaining
demonstrating
within
fifteen
feet
persons
seeking
access
leaving
facility
addition
provided
right
sidewalk
counseling
defined
herein
shall
limit
right
police
department
maintain
public
order
reasonably
necessary
rules
regulations
decide
necessary
particular
demonstration
site
using
mechanical
loudspeaker
sound
amplification
device
making
excessively
loud
sound
injures
disturbs
endangers
health
safety
patient
employee
health
care
facility
abortions
performed
shall
person
make
sounds
interfere
rights
anyone
violation
order
attempting
inducing
directing
aiding
abetting
manner
others
take
actions
described
paragraphs
nevertheless
explaining
respondents
likely
succeed
claim
district
used
different
language
describe
respondents
claim
used
describe
respondents
claim
compare
defendants
conspiracy
intended
deprive
women
constitutional
rights
travel
choose
abortion
subjects
harassment
seek
exercise
rights
defendants
engaging
conspiracy
cognizable
class
persons
invidious
class
based
animus
committing
overt
acts
furtherance
conspiracy
conspiracy
infringes
two
constitutional
rights
women
seeking
abortions
presumably
track
different
language
compare
civ
rights
law
mckinney
person
shall
sex
subjected
discrimination
civil
rights
harassment
exercise
thereof
person
two
persons
conspire
purpose
depriving
person
equal
protection
laws
one
persons
engaged
therein
act
furtherance
theobject
conspiracy
whereby
another
deprived
exercising
right
privilege
citizen
party
deprived
may
action
recovery
damages
noted
although
defendants
stipulated
entry
injunction
blocking
obstructing
access
clinics
trespassing
clinic
property
purpose
blocking
obstructing
access
injunction
terms
comprehensive
term
blocking
obstructing
access
broader
injunction
justified
case
said
better
tailored
evidence
petitioners
argue
injunction
unlawful
prior
restraint
standard
set
madsen
therefore
inapplicable
rejected
argument
madsen
petitioners
make
effort
distinguish
madsen
ground
reject
madsen
alternative
channels
communication
left
open
protesters
injunction
issued
content
protesters
expression
prior
unlawful
conduct
madsen
justice
scalia
dissent
contends
district
reliance
public
safety
permissible
government
may
seek
injunction
based
factor
district
reliance
factor
use
element
supported
respondents
claim
injunction
rather
used
factor
basis
rejecting
petitioners
challenge
injunction
first
amendment
grounds
need
decide
whether
governmental
interest
protecting
medical
privacy
well
patients
held
captive
medical
circumstance
issue
madsen
implicated
interest
relevant
madsen
patients
inside
clinic
heard
chanting
shouting
protesters
suffered
increased
health
risks
result
see
although
district
found
loud
voices
sidewalk
counselors
heard
inside
clinic
petitioners
challenge
injunction
ban
excessive
noise
suspect
floating
buffer
zones
also
quite
difficult
district
enforce
contempt
proceedings
likely
focus
whether
protesters
thought
keeping
pace
targeted
individual
distance
feet
actually
strayed
within
feet
individual
certain
period
time
significantly
district
judge
expressed
concern
september
tro
hearing
stating
understanding
moving
buffer
zone
quite
infeasible
nevertheless
terms
tro
injunction
provide
exactly
district
never
authoritatively
put
limiting
construction
injunction
justice
breyer
dissent
places
great
stress
districtcourt
statement
september
hearing
concludes
district
never
understood
tro
even
injunction
contain
floating
buffer
zones
believe
justice
breyer
misreads
record
first
despite
district
statements
september
hearing
held
petitioner
one
defendant
contempt
violating
paragraph
tro
came
within
feet
individual
attempting
enter
clinic
even
though
feet
doorway
driveway
entrance
clinic
see
pro
choice
network
western
project
rescue
western
wdny
sept
pp
doctor
parked
several
hundred
feet
clinic
attempted
walk
sidewalk
toward
clinic
contemnors
followed
doctor
length
sidewalk
yelling
distance
feet
point
doctor
feet
clinic
driveway
entrance
held
conduct
violates
tro
proscription
demonstrating
within
fifteen
feet
person
seeking
access
clinic
thus
conclude
district
read
tro
way
ordinary
person
create
floating
buffer
zone
second
district
opinion
accompanying
issuance
preliminary
injunction
shows
interpreted
injunction
contain
floating
buffer
zones
described
paragraph
injunction
setting
dual
clear
zones
fifteen
feet
around
entrances
fifteen
feet
around
people
vehicles
seeking
access
emphasis
added
injunction
terms
bans
demonstrating
within
feet
clinic
entrances
within
fifteen
feet
person
vehicle
seeking
access
clinic
emphasis
added
finally
note
judge
en
banc
appeals
expressed
doubt
injunction
included
floating
buffer
zones
cf
discussing
far
clinic
floating
buffer
zone
may
reach
justice
breyer
suggests
whether
injunction
creates
floating
buffer
zones
none
parties
us
suggested
injunction
provide
zones
fact
injunction
allows
two
sidewalk
counselors
fixed
buffer
zones
subject
cease
desist
provision
detract
conclusion
clear
district
opinion
decision
allow
two
sidewalk
counselors
inside
buffer
zones
effort
bend
backwards
accommodate
defendants
speech
rights
see
district
entitled
conclude
record
feasible
way
shield
individuals
within
fixed
buffer
zone
unprotected
conduct
especially
law
enforcement
efforts
hampered
defendants
harassment
police
keep
entire
area
clear
defendant
protesters
district
extra
effort
enhance
defendants
speech
rights
allowing
exception
fixed
buffer
zone
redound
detriment
respondents
although
petitioners
argue
disapproval
approach
zone
madsen
requires
disapproval
cease
desist
provision
madsen
easily
distinguishable
point
since
approach
zone
eight
times
broader
buffer
zone
deemed
necessary
ensure
access
clinic
madsen
justice
scalia
dissent
suggests
failure
endorse
district
reason
including
cease
desist
provision
requires
us
reverse
district
decision
setting
injunction
terms
suggestion
inconsistent
precedents
see
rutan
republican
party
lthough
affirm
seventh
circuit
judgment
adopt
seventh
circuit
reasoning
smith
phillips
respondent
may
course
defend
judgment
ground
law
record
permit
provided
asserted
ground
expand
relief
granted
sec
chenery
disturb
settled
rule
reviewing
decision
lower
must
affirmed
result
correct
although
lower
relied
upon
wrong
ground
gave
wrong
reason
quoting
helvering
gowran
langnes
green
entire
record
power
review
action
appeals
direct
disposition
case
might
done
upon
writ
error
sued
review
district
williams
norris
wheat
marshall
judgment
lower
correct
although
reasoning
mind
judge
conducted
deemed
unsound
judgment
certainly
affirmed
defendants
including
two
petitioners
stipulated
district
district
concludes
relief
requested
plaintiffs
granted
preliminary
injunctive
basis
defendants
consent
entry
injunction
every
one
app
pet
cert
lengthy
citation
cases
standing
proposition
appellate
affirm
mandatory
legal
ground
different
relied
upon
trial
ante
relevance
question
whether
appellate
substitute
assessments
past
facts
future
probabilities
hence
injunctive
necessities
assessments
made
required
made
trial
contends
petitioners
raise
issue
whether
cause
action
valid
issue
whether
district
erred
concluding
claim
likely
succeed
ante
concept
invalid
claim
likely
succeed
interesting
one
doubt
petitioners
entertain
plainly
challenged
district
ruling
respondents
likely
prevail
state
antidiscrimination
claim
brief
petitioners
see
also
madsen
also
refers
public
safety
one
government
interests
state
relied
justifying
challenged
injunction
nothing
decision
approved
relied
upon
feature
state
approach
approves
reliance
public
safety
element
supported
respondents
claim
injunction
basis
rejecting
petitioners
challenge
injunction
first
amendment
grounds
ante
distinction
makes
sense
context
us
whether
basis
rejecting
petitioners
challenge
injunction
first
amendment
grounds
depends
entirely
whether
element
suppor
respondents
claim
injunction
strong
enough
issues
one
injunction
must
justified
elements
support
involvement
first
amendment
rights
alter
rule
merely
increases
degree
justification
required
course
illogical
simply
saying
limit
novel
public
safety
rationale
injunctions
involving
freedom
speech
hardly
consider
small
unimportant
area
newly
created
judicial
committees
public
safety
control