McCullen v. Coakley

In 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court presided over the case McCullen v. Coakley. The case concerned a Massachusetts statute, the Reproductive Health Care Facilities Act from 2000 and 2007, which “makes it a crime to stand on a public road or sidewalk within thirty-five feet of a reproductive health care facility violates the First Amendment” (SCOTUSblog). Eleanor McCullen and other activists, the petitioners, engage in what is considered “sidewalk counseling,” which includes suggesting alternatives in a calm manner to women entering the clinic in order to refrain from an abortion.

In 2008, the petitioners sued Martha Coakley, the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Massachusets, on grounds of the statute being violative of both the First and Fourteenth Amendments. They first sued in District Court, which ruled in favor of Coakley. The petitioners then appealed to the Court of Appeals for the First District, which upheld “the 2007 version as a reasonable “time, place, and manner” regulation under the test set forth in Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U. S. 781 (1989)” (McCullen v. Coakley). Subsequently, they appealed to the Supreme Court with a writ of certiorari. The Supreme Court decided to grant certiorari and review the case during the 2014 term.

On June 26^th, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the Massachusetts statute with its buffer zones is indeed violative of the First Amendment and that it thus infringes on the right to free speech, since the petitioners’ attempts would be thwarted (McCullen v. Coakley). Chief Justice Roberts delivered the majority opinion, in which many issues, such as content and strict scrutiny are considered. The majority opinion itself holds that the buffer zones restrict the petitioners’ free speech as well as the possibility of practicing compassionate sidewalk counseling (since the distance prevents them from “personal, caring, and consensual conversations”): thus, “the buffer zones burden substantially more speech than necessary to achieve the Commonwealth’s asserted interests” (McCullen v. Coakley). Therefore, the Commonwealth has insufficiently studied approaches that would be less restrictive and would not exclude “individuals from areas historically open for speech and debate” (McCullen v. Coakley). Thus, it violates the First Amendment. The Supreme Court reverses the Court of Appeals’ ruling and the case is remanded. 

Justices Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas concur by arguing that the “obvious purpose of the challenged portion of the Massachusetts Reproductive Health Care Facilities Act is to “protect” prospective clients of abortion clinics from having to hear abortion-opposing speech on public streets and sidewalks,” which they perceive to be unconstitutional (McCullen v. Coakley). The majority and this opinion differ on the topic of content-neutrality as well. Justice Alito concurs as well in another separate opinion while arguing that the act discriminates based on viewpoint.

  

Relevant to this case is a precedent named Hill v. Colorado from 2000, which upheld anti-abortion buffer zones, since that law was narrowly tailored. As Kevin Russell asks, could the reasons explicated for overturning the Massachusetts statute also serve to deem Colorado’s buffer zones unconstitutional? The McCullen decision thus evokes new questions and issues which could severely impact other statutes and legislation.  In fact, three concurring Justices advocated the overturn of Hill (McCullen; Denniston). 

Ultimately, the Supreme Court did uphold free speech in the McCullen v. Coakley case with a 9-0 vote, which is a  victory for freedom of speech in the United States. While I advocate unlimited freedom of speech and thus fully agree with this decision and deem it justified, I do wish more people would respect each others’ privacy and sorrow.Even though the petitioners do not assault the women they approach, are caring in their conversations, and respect the final choice the approached woman makes, which I all appreciate, I do find it saddening that fragile women, who are in pain over the decision they are about to make and may be traumatized by that same decision, have to defend themselves and justify their choices on such a tragic and difficult day. On the other hand, however, precisely that, the freedom to be hurtful, is essential to the exercise of freedom of speech, which, in my view, should always be preserved, since it should be a right available to all people, fosters debate and critical thinking, and may lead to change for the better in many instances.

  

Steven Shapiro, affiliated with the American Civil, clearly reflects the dilemma I have found myself entangled in as well: “This is a hard case and the majority opinion reflects the difficulty and importance of balancing two constitutional rights: the right of women to enter and leave abortion clinics free from the harassment, intimidation, and violence they have too often suffered in the past; and the right of peaceful protestors to express their opposition to abortion on the public streets outside abortion clinics.”

 

A photo of petitioner Eleanor McCullen (Loeb). 

Works Cited

Denniston, Lyle. “Opinion Analysis: A Broader Right to Oppose Abortion.” SCOTUSblog: Supreme Court of the     United States Blog. Bloomberg Law, 26 June 2014. Web. 16 September 2014.

Loeb, Saul. Eleanor McCullen, who challenged Massachusetts' 35-foot buffer zone around abortion clinics,  stands outside the Supreme Court building on Jan. 15, 2014. AFP. Photograph. 17 September 2014.

“McCullen v. Coakley.” SCOTUSblog: Supreme Court of the United States Blog. Bloomberg Law, n.d. Web. 16       September 2014.

McCullen v. Coakley. 573 U.S. Supreme Court of the United States. 2014. Cornell University Law School Legal      Information Institute. Web. 15 September 2014.

Shapiro, Steven R. “ACLU Reacts to Supreme Court Abortion Clinic Buffer Zone Ruling.” American Civil Liberties Union. 26 June 2014. Web. 16 September 2014.

Russell, Kevin. “What is Left of Hill v. Colorado?” SCOTUSblog: Supreme Court of the United States Blog. Bloomberg Law, 26 June 2014. Web. 16 September 2014.