McCullen v. Coakley

Decision Date26 June 2014
Docket NumberNo. 12–1168.,12–1168.
Citation189 L.Ed.2d 502,573 U.S. 464,134 S.Ct. 2518
Parties Eleanor McCULLEN, et al., Petitioners v. Martha COAKLEY, Attorney General of Massachusetts, et al.
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Mark L. Rienzi, Washington, DC, for Petitioners.

Jennifer Grace Miller, Boston, MA, for Respondents.

Ian H. Gershengorn, for the United States as amicus curiae, by special leave of the Court, supporting the respondents.

Edward C. DuMont, Todd C. Zubler, Matthew Guarnieri, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Washington, DC, Jason D. Hirsch, Adriel I. Cepeda Derieux, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, New York, NY, Mark L. Rienzi, Counsel of Record, The Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law, Washington, DC, Michael J. DePrimo, Hamden, CT, Philip D. Moran, Salem, MA, for Petitioners.

Martha Coakley, Attorney General, Jennifer Grace Miller, Counsel of Record, Jonathan B. Miller, Sookyoung Shin, Assistant Attorneys General, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Office of the Attorney General, Boston, MA, for Respondents.

Chief Justice ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court.

A Massachusetts statute makes it a crime to knowingly stand on a " public way or sidewalk" within 35 feet of an entrance or driveway to any place, other than a hospital, where abortions are performed. Mass. Gen. Laws, ch. 266, §§ 120E½(a), (b) (West 2012). Petitioners are individuals who approach and talk to women outside such facilities, attempting to dissuade them from having abortions. The statute prevents petitioners from doing so near the facilities' entrances. The question presented is whether the statute violates the First Amendment.

I

A

In 2000, the Massachusetts Legislature enacted the Massachusetts Reproductive Health Care Facilities Act, Mass. Gen. Laws, ch. 266, § 120E½ (West 2000). The law was designed to address clashes between abortion opponents and advocates of abortion rights that were occurring outside clinics where abortions were performed. The Act established a defined area with an 18–foot radius around the entrances and driveways of such facilities. § 120E½ (b). Anyone could enter that area, but once within it, no one (other than certain exempt individuals) could knowingly approach within six feet of another person—unless that person consented—"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." Ibid. A separate provision subjected to criminal punishment anyone who "knowingly obstructs, detains, hinders, impedes or blocks another person's entry to or exit from a reproductive health care facility." § 120E½(e).

The statute was modeled on a similar Colorado law that this Court had upheld in Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703, 120 S.Ct. 2480, 147 L.Ed.2d 597 (2000). Relying on Hill, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit sustained the Massachusetts statute against a First Amendment challenge. McGuire v. Reilly, 386 F.3d 45 (2004) (McGuire II ), cert. denied, 544 U.S. 974, 125 S.Ct. 1827, 161 L.Ed.2d 724 (2005) ; McGuire v. Reilly, 260 F.3d 36 (2001) (McGuire I ).

By 2007, some Massachusetts legislators and law enforcement officials had come to regard the 2000 statute as inadequate. At legislative hearings, multiple witnesses recounted apparent violations of the law. Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley, for example, testified that protestors violated the statute "on a routine basis." App. 78. To illustrate this claim, she played a video depicting protestors approaching patients and clinic staff within the buffer zones, ostensibly without the latter individuals' consent. Clinic employees and volunteers also testified that protestors congregated near the doors and in the driveways of the clinics, with the result that prospective patients occasionally retreated from the clinics rather than try to make their way to the clinic entrances or parking lots.

Captain William B. Evans of the Boston Police Department, however, testified that his officers had made "no more than five or so arrests" at the Planned Parenthood clinic in Boston and that what few prosecutions had been brought were unsuccessful. Id., at 68–69. Witnesses attributed the dearth of enforcement to the difficulty of policing the six-foot no-approach zones. Captain Evans testified that the 18–foot zones were so crowded with protestors that they resembled "a goalie's crease," making it hard to determine whether a protestor had deliberately approached a patient or, if so, whether the patient had consented. Id., at 69–71. For similar reasons, Attorney General Coakley concluded that the six-foot no-approach zones were " unenforceable." Id., at 79. What the police needed, she said, was a fixed buffer zone around clinics that protestors could not enter. Id., at 74, 76. Captain Evans agreed, explaining that such a zone would "make our job so much easier." Id., at 68.

To address these concerns, the Massachusetts Legislature amended the statute in 2007, replacing the six-foot no-approach zones (within the 18–foot area) with a 35–foot fixed buffer zone from which individuals are categorically excluded. The statute now provides:

"No person shall knowingly enter or remain on a public way or sidewalk adjacent to a reproductive health care facility within a radius of 35 feet of any portion of an entrance, exit or driveway of a reproductive health care facility or within the area within a rectangle created by extending the outside boundaries of any entrance, exit or driveway of a reproductive health care facility in straight lines to the point where such lines intersect the sideline of the street in front of such entrance, exit or driveway." Mass. Gen. Laws, ch. 266, § 120E½(b) (West 2012).

A "reproductive health care facility," in turn, is defined as "a place, other than within or upon the grounds of a hospital, where abortions are offered or performed." § 120E½(a).

The 35–foot buffer zone applies only "during a facility's business hours," and the area must be "clearly marked and posted." § 120E½(c). In practice, facilities typically mark the zones with painted arcs and posted signs on adjacent sidewalks and streets. A first violation of the statute is punishable by a fine of up to $500, up to three months in prison, or both, while a subsequent offense is punishable by a fine of between $500 and $5,000, up to two and a half years in prison, or both. § 120E½(d).

The Act exempts four classes of individuals: (1) "persons entering or leaving such facility"; (2) "employees or agents of such facility acting within the scope of their employment"; (3) "law enforcement, ambulance, firefighting, construction, utilities, public works and other municipal agents acting within the scope of their employment"; and (4) "persons using the public sidewalk or street right-of-way adjacent to such facility solely for the purpose of reaching a destination other than such facility." § 120E½ (b)(1)-(4). The legislature also retained the separate provision from the 2000 version that proscribes the knowing obstruction of access to a facility. § 120E½(e).

B

Some of the individuals who stand outside Massachusetts abortion clinics are fairly described as protestors, who express their moral or religious opposition to abortion through signs and chants or, in some cases, more aggressive methods such as face-to-face confrontation. Petitioners take a different tack. They attempt to engage women approaching the clinics in what they call "sidewalk counseling," which involves offering information about alternatives to abortion and help pursuing those options. Petitioner Eleanor McCullen, for instance, will typically initiate a conversation this way: "Good morning, may I give you my literature? Is there anything I can do for you? I'm available if you have any questions." App. 138. If the woman seems receptive, McCullen will provide additional information. McCullen and the other petitioners consider it essential to maintain a caring demeanor, a calm tone of voice, and direct eye contact during these exchanges. Such interactions, petitioners believe, are a much more effective means of dissuading women from having abortions than confrontational methods such as shouting or brandishing signs, which in petitioners' view tend only to antagonize their intended audience. In unrefuted testimony, petitioners say they have collectively persuaded hundreds of women to forgo abortions.

The buffer zones have displaced petitioners from their previous positions outside the clinics. McCullen offers counseling outside a Planned Parenthood clinic in Boston, as do petitioners Jean Zarrella and Eric Cadin. Petitioner Gregory Smith prays the rosary there. The clinic occupies its own building on a street corner. Its main door is recessed into an open foyer, approximately 12 feet back from the public sidewalk. Before the Act was amended to create the buffer zones, petitioners stood near the entryway to the foyer. Now a buffer zone—marked by a painted arc and a sign—surrounds the entrance. This zone extends 23 feet down the sidewalk in one direction, 26 feet in the other, and outward just one foot short of the curb. The clinic's entrance adds another seven feet to the width of the zone. Id., at 293–295. The upshot is that petitioners are effectively excluded from a 56–foot–wide expanse of the public sidewalk in front of the clinic.1

Petitioners Mark Bashour and Nancy Clark offer counseling and information outside a Planned Parenthood clinic in Worcester. Unlike the Boston clinic, the Worcester clinic sits well back from the public street and sidewalks. Patients enter the clinic in one of two ways. Those arriving on foot turn off the public sidewalk and walk down a nearly 54–foot–long private walkway to the main entrance. More than 85% of patients, however, arrive by car, turning onto the clinic's driveway from the street, parking in a private lot, and walking to the main entrance on...

To continue reading

Request your trial
320 cases
  • State v. Casillas, A19-0576
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • December 30, 2020
    ...L. Rev. 345, 357–59 (2014) ).11 We further note that Minnesota Statutes § 617.261 is not "exceptional." McCullen v. Coakley , 573 U.S. 464, 490, 134 S.Ct. 2518, 189 L.Ed.2d 502 (2014) (noting that a Massachusetts statute "raise[d] concerns" over its tailoring because it was the only statute......
  • Oakes v. Collier Cnty.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida
    • January 27, 2021
    ...that interest; and (3) "leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information." McCullen v. Coakley , 573 U.S. 464, 477, 134 S.Ct. 2518, 189 L.Ed.2d 502 (2014) (quoting Ward , 491 U.S. at 791, 109 S.Ct. 2746 ); see also Frisby v. Schultz , 487 U.S. 474, 484, 108 S.Ct. 2......
  • Ctr. for Bio-Ethical Reform, Inc. v. Irvine Co.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • July 2, 2019
    ...context means it is the "least restrictive means of achieving [the] compelling ... interest." ( McCullen v. Coakley (2014) 573 U.S. 464, 478, 134 S.Ct. 2518, 189 L.Ed.2d 502 ( McCullen ).) This is an extremely demanding standard. " ‘It is rare that a regulation restricting speech because of......
  • Chelsey Nelson Photography LLC v. Louisville/Jefferson Cnty. Metro Gov't
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Kentucky
    • August 14, 2020
    ..., ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S. Ct. 2361, 2371, 201 L.Ed.2d 835 (2018) ; 576 U.S. at 163, 135 S.Ct. 2218 ; McCullen v. Coakley , 573 U.S. 464, 477, 134 S.Ct. 2518, 189 L.Ed.2d 502 (2014) ; United States v. Alvarez , 567 U.S. 709, 716, 132 S.Ct. 2537, 183 L.Ed.2d 574 (2012) (plurality op.); Brown v.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 firm's commentaries
19 books & journal articles
  • ULTRA-COMPELLED: ABORTION PROVIDERS' FREE SPEECH RIGHTS AFTER NIFLA.
    • United States
    • Albany Law Review Vol. 85 No. 1, March 2022
    • March 22, 2022
    ...(2018). (310) Id. at 2374 (quoting Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622, 641 (1994)). (311) Id. (quoting McCullen v. Coakley, 573 U.S. 464, 476 (312) Id. at 2375 (citing Brown v. Ent. Merchs. Ass'n, 564 U.S. 786, 791 (2011)). (313) Id. (314) Id. at 2372 (citing Zauderer v. Off. of ......
  • OVERBROAD INJUNCTIONS AGAINST SPEECH (ESPECIALLY IN LIBEL AND HARASSMENT CASES).
    • United States
    • Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy Vol. 45 No. 1, January 2022
    • January 1, 2022
    ...(159.) Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155, 163 (2015). (160.) Id. (161.) Id. (citation omitted). (162.) McCullen v. Coakley, 573 U.S. 464, 479 (2014) (citation (163.) See, e.g., Fla. Stat. [section][section] 784.048-.0485. (164.) 561 U.S. 1 (2010). (165.) Id. at 28. (166.) Id. at 27. (16......
  • Abortion Protesting
    • United States
    • Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law No. XXIII-2, January 2022
    • January 1, 2022
    ...See Cheffer v. Reno, 55 F.3d 1517, 1520–22 (11th Cir. 1995). 58. Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155 (2015). 59. McCullen v. Coakley, 573 U.S. 464 (2014). 60. 576 U.S. at 169. 61. Bruni v. City of Pittsburgh, 141 S. Ct. 578 (2021). 128 THE GEORGETOWN JOURNAL OF GENDER AND THE LAW [Vol. XX......
  • Abortion Protesting
    • United States
    • Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law No. XXIV-2, January 2023
    • January 1, 2023
    ...supporters—were listed under separate f‌ile headings. 52 Within 43. Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155 (2015). 44. McCullen v. Coakley, 573 U.S. 464 (2014). 45. Reed , 576 U.S. at 169. 46. Bruni v. City of Pittsburgh, 141 S. Ct. 578 (2021). 47. Id. (Thomas, J., respecting the denial of c......
  • 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