Hill v Colorado, 981856

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Citation530 U.S. 703,147 L.Ed.2d 597,120 S.Ct. 2480
Docket Number981856
Decision Date28 June 2000

530 U.S. 703
120 S.Ct. 2480
147 L.Ed.2d 597

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.


No. 98-1856.


Argued January 19, 2000

Decided June 28, 2000



Colorado Rev. Stat. §18-9-122(3) makes it unlawful for any person within 100 feet of a health care facility's entrance to "knowingly approach" within 8 feet of another person, without that person's consent, in order to pass "a leaflet or handbill to, displa[y] a sign to, or engag[e] in oral protest, education, or counseling with [that] person - ." Claiming that the statute was facially invalid, petitioners sought to enjoin its enforcement in state court. In dismissing the complaint, the District Judge held that the statute imposed content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest under Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, in that Colorado had not "adopted a regulation of speech because of disagreement with the message it conveys," id, at 791. The State Court of Appeals affirmed, and the State Supreme Court denied review. This Court vacated that judgment in light of its holding in Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western N. Y., 519 U.S. 357, that an injunctive provision creating a speech-free floating buffer zone with a 15-foot radius violated the First Amendment. On remand, the Court of Appeals reinstated its judgment, and the State Supreme Court affirmed, distinguishing Schenck, concluding that the statute was narrowly drawn to further a significant government interest, rejecting petitioners' overbreadth challenge, and concluding that ample alternative channels of communication remained open to petitioners.

Held: Section 18-9-122(3)'s restrictions on speech-related conduct are constitutional. Pp. 9-30.

(a) Each side has legitimate and important concerns. Petitioners' First Amendment interests are clear and undisputed. On the other hand, the State's police powers allow it to protect its citizens' health and safety, and may justify a special focus on access to health care facilities and the avoidance of potential trauma to patients associated with confrontational protests. Moreover, rules providing specific guidance to enforcement authorities serve the interest in evenhanded application of the law. Also, the statute deals not with restricting a speaker's right to address a willing audience, but with protecting listeners from unwanted communication. Pp. 9-13.

(b) Section 18-9-122(3) passes the Ward content-neutrality test for three independent reasons. First, it is a regulation of places where some speech may occur, not a "regulation of speech." Second, it was not adopted because of disagreement with the message of any speech. Most importantly, the State Supreme Court unequivocally held that the restrictions apply to all demonstrators, regardless of viewpoint, and the statute makes no reference to the content of speech. Third, the State's interests are unrelated to the content of the demonstrators' speech. Petitioners contend that insofar as the statute applies to persons who "knowingly approach" within eight feet of another to engage in "oral protest, education, or counseling," it is "content-based" under Carey v. Brown, 447 U.S. 455, 462, because it requires examination of the content of a speaker's comments. This Court, however, has never held that it is improper to look at a statement's content in order to determine whether a rule of law applies to a course of conduct. Here, it is unlikely that there would often be any need to know exactly what words were spoken in order to determine whether sidewalk counselors are engaging in oral protest, education, or counseling rather than social or random conversation. The statute is easily distinguishable from the one in Carey, which prohibited all picketing except for picketing of a place of employment in a labor dispute, thereby according preferential treatment to expression concerning one particular subject. In contrast, §18-19-122(3) merely places a minor place restriction on an extremely broad category of communications with unwilling listeners. Pp. 14-21.

(c) Section 18-9-122(3) is also a valid time, place, and manner regulation under Ward, for it is "narrowly tailored" to serve the State's significant and legitimate governmental interests and it leaves open ample alternative communication channels. When a content-neutral regulation does not entirely foreclose any means of communication, it may satisfy the tailoring requirement even though it is not the least restrictive or least intrusive means of serving the statutory goal. The 8-foot zone should not have any adverse impact on the readers' ability to read demonstrators' signs. That distance can make it more difficult for a speaker to be heard, but there is no limit on the number of speakers or the noise level. Nor does the statute suffer from the failings of the "floating buffer zone" rejected in Schenck. The zone here allows the speaker to communicate at a "normal conversational distance," 519 U.S., at 377, and to remain in one place while other individuals pass within eight feet. And the "knowing" requirement protects speakers who thought they were at the proscribed distance from inadvertently violating the statute. Whether the 8-foot interval is the best possible accommodation of the competing interests, deference must be accorded to the Colorado Legislature's judgment. The burden on the distribution of handbills is more serious, but the statute does not prevent a leafletter from simply standing near the path of oncoming pedestrians and proffering the material, which pedestrians can accept or decline. See Heffron v. International Soc. for Krishna Consciousness, Inc., 452 U.S. 640. Pp. 21-25.

(d) Section 18-9-122(3) is not overbroad. First, the argument that coverage is broader than the specific concern that led to the statute's enactment does not identify a constitutional defect. It is precisely because the state legislature made a general policy choice that the statute is assessed under Ward rather than a stricter standard. Second, the argument that the statute bans virtually the universe of protected expression is based on a misreading of the statute and an incorrect understanding of the overbreadth doctrine. The statute does not ban any forms of communication, but regulates the places where communications may occur; and petitioners have not, as the doctrine requires, persuaded the Court that the statute's impact on the conduct of other speakers will differ from its impact on their own sidewalk counseling, see Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 612, 615. Pp. 25-27.

(e) Nor is §18-9-122(3) unconstitutionally vague, either because it fails to provide people with ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to understand what it says or because it authorizes or encourages arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement, Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41, 56-57. The first concern is ameliorated by §18-9-122(3)'s scienter requirement. It is unlikely that anyone would not understand the common words used in the statute, and hypothetical situations not before the Court will not support a facial attack on a statute that is surely valid in the vast majority of its intended applications. The Court is likewise unpersuaded that inadequate direction is given to law enforcement authorities. Indeed, one of §18- 9-122(3)'s virtues is the specificity of the definitions of the zones. Pp. 27-29.

(f) Finally, §18-9-122(3)'s consent requirement does not impose a prior restraint on speech. This argument was rejected in both Schenck and Madsen. Furthermore, "prior restraint" concerns relate to restrictions imposed by official censorship, but the regulations here only apply if the pedestrian does not consent to the approach. Pp. 29-30.

973 P.2d 1246, affirmed.

Stevens, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and O'Connor, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Souter, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which O'Connor, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Scalia, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Thomas, J., joined. Kennedy, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

Opinion of the Court

Justice Stevens delivered the opinion of the Court.

At issue is the constitutionality of a 1993 Colorado statute that regulates speech-related conduct within 100 feet of the entrance to any health care facility. The specific section of the statute that is challenged, Colo. Rev. Stat. §18-9-122(3) (1999), makes it unlawful within the regulated areas for any person to "knowingly approach" within eight feet of another person, without that person's consent, "for the purpose of passing a leaflet or handbill to, displaying a sign to, or engaging in oral protest, education, or counseling with such other person - ."(FN1) Although the statute prohibits speakers from approaching unwilling listeners, it does not require a standing speaker to move away from anyone passing by. Nor does it place any restriction on the content of any message that anyone may wish to communicate to anyone else, either inside or outside the regulated areas. It does, however, make it more difficult to give unwanted advice, particularly in the form of a handbill or leaflet, to persons entering or leaving medical facilities.

The question is whether the First Amendment rights of the speaker are abridged by the protection the statute provides for the unwilling listener.


Five months after the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1359 cases
  • Gold Diggers, LLC v. Town of Berlin, Conn., 06CV732.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Connecticut)
    • January 16, 2007
    ...prohibits", or it "authorizes or even encourages arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement." Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. Page 61 703, 732, 120 S.Ct. 2480, 147 L.Ed.2d 597 (2000). Language does not delineate with mathematical certainty, and terms may be marked by flexibility and reasonable bre......
  • White Coat Waste Project v. Greater Richmond Transit Co.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Virginia)
    • May 30, 2020
    ...what [speech] it prohibits. Second, if it authorizes or even encourages arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement." Hill v. Colorado , 530 U.S. 703, 732, 120 S.Ct. 2480, 147 L.Ed.2d 597 (2000) (citing City of Chicago v. Morales , 527 U.S. 41, 56–57, 119 S.Ct. 1849, 144 L.Ed.2d 67 (1999) ); s......
  • State v. Katz
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Indiana
    • January 18, 2022
    ...safeguard its citizens’ health and safety" through Indiana Code section 35-45-4-8. Casillas, 952 N.W.2d at 641 (citing Hill v. Colorado , 530 U.S. 703, 715, 120 S.Ct. 2480, 147 L.Ed.2d 597 (2000) ("It is a traditional exercise of the States’ police powers to protect the health and safety of......
  • Saltz v. City of Frederick
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Maryland)
    • May 10, 2021
    ...own rights are such that he or she should not be required to do so." Eanes , 318 Md. at 451, 569 A.2d at 611 ; see Hill v. Colorado , 530 U.S. 703, 716-17, 120 S.Ct. 2480, 147 L.Ed.2d 597 (2000). But, this doctrine is employed sparingly to a narrow set of fact scenarios outside of the home.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 firm's commentaries
  • Supreme Court Unanimously Rules In Favor Of WilmerHale Pro Bono Client, Against Speech-Restrictive Law
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • July 11, 2014
    ...a "buffer zone" law for reproductive health care facilities in 2000, after the Supreme Court upheld such a law in Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703 (2000). In 2007, Massachusetts replaced it with the law at issue in McCullen after claiming that the prior measure had not been effective and was ......
  • Sign, Sign, Everywhere A Sign . . . Can’t You Read The Sign?
    • United States
    • LexBlog United States
    • April 28, 2022
    ...of the disagreement: In so doing, the majority’s reasoning is reminiscent of this Court’s erroneous decision in Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703 (2000), which upheld a blatantly content-based prohibition on “counseling” near abortion clinics on the ground that it discriminated against “an ext......
19 books & journal articles
  • Targeted hate speech and the first amendment: how the supreme court should have decided Snyder.
    • United States
    • Suffolk University Law Review Vol. 46 No. 1, February - February 2013
    • February 1, 2013
    ...telephone call to the grieving parents shortly before or after the funeral rather than displaying them on signs. (160.) Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703, 715 (161.) Id. at 715, 729; see also Madsen v. Women's Health Ctr., Inc., 512 U.S. 753, 768 (1994) (upholding injunction prohibiting protes......
    • United States
    • Washington University Law Review Vol. 100 No. 1, September 2022
    • September 1, 2022
    ...ever be permissible"') (quoting United States v. Playboy Ent. Grp., Inc., 529 U.S. 803, 818 (2000)). (15.) See. e.g., Hill v. Colorado. 530 U.S. 703, 725-30 (2000) (applying a less demanding version of scrutiny to a content-neutral (16.) See id. at 730 (upholding the speech restriction at i......
  • The Legal Status of Conversion Therapy
    • United States
    • Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law No. XXII-1, October 2020
    • October 1, 2020
    ...so “government may regulate in the area only with narrow specif‌icity.”).112. N.J. STAT ANN. § 45:1-55 (West 2013).113. Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703, 733 (2000).114. If a statute “involves conduct of . . . persons having specialized knowledge, and the challengedphraseology is indigenous t......
  • An Enduring American Heritage: A Substantive Due Process Right to Public Wild Lands
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Reporter No. 51-1, January 2021
    • January 1, 2021
    ...of Justice 426-27 (1971)). 62. Id . at 573. 63. United States v. Munoz, 701 F.2d 1293, 1298 (9th Cir. 1983); see also Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703, 716-17 (2000) (quoting Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting) (as “‘the right to be let alone’ that o......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT