Hill v. Colorado
The Court upheld a Colorado law that bars anyone from knowingly approaching within eight feet of another person near a health care facility's entrance to leaflet, display signs, or talk to them for protest, education, or counseling purposes, without that person's consent.
The ruling treats the law as a neutral rule about how close people may get to unwilling listeners near clinics, rather than as a restriction on what they can say, allowing states more room to buffer sensitive medical-facility entrances from face-to-face confrontation.
How it got here: Colorado trial and appellate courts upheld the law; the Colorado Supreme Court affirmed, and the challengers sought review by the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Case in Depth
What happened
Colorado passed a law restricting close approaches to people near health care facility entrances after hearing testimony that abortion-clinic protests sometimes involved aggressive, confrontational encounters that upset patients. A group of "sidewalk counselors" who regularly spoke with women outside abortion clinics, hoping to persuade them against abortion, sued, arguing the law's eight-foot no-approach zone for leafletting, sign displays, and oral protest, education, or counseling violated their First Amendment speech rights.
The question before the Court
Could Colorado make it a crime to knowingly walk within eight feet of someone near a health clinic's entrance to hand them a leaflet, show a sign, or talk to them without their consent?
The Court's answer
Yes -- the Court ruled that Colorado's eight-foot no-approach rule is a valid, content-neutral time, place, and manner regulation, not a ban on speech. It found the law didn't target any particular viewpoint or subject matter, since it applied equally to anyone approaching an unwilling listener near a clinic entrance for protest, education, or counseling, regardless of what side of an issue they took.
Because the law left speakers free to stand still and communicate through signs, leaflets held out for pedestrians to take, or spoken words at a slight distance, the Court found it left open ample ways to communicate and was narrowly tailored to protect people entering medical facilities from unwanted, close-up confrontation.
Curious how the Court got there? See the step-by-step legal reasoning →
Why it matters
Sidewalk counselors and protesters near clinics -- most often outside abortion facilities -- must now stay eight feet away from patients and staff unless invited closer, making leafletting and close conversation harder. Clinics and patients gain a buffer from unwanted confrontation, while other states can look to this ruling as a model for similar buffer-zone laws around medical facilities.
What changes now
This is a final merits decision that leaves Colorado's law in effect and resolves the facial constitutional challenge, so no further proceedings are required in this case. The ruling gives other states and municipalities a template for enacting similar buffer-zone laws around health care facility entrances, though disputes may continue to arise over how such laws apply to specific facilities, protesters, or conduct at the margins of the eight-foot rule.
What this does not decide
The Court did not decide whether there is a general constitutional "right" to avoid unwelcome speech in public; it said only that the state has a legitimate interest it may choose to protect here. The ruling also does not address buffer zones with different distances, different locations besides health facilities, or laws that ban speech outright rather than merely regulating close physical approach.
Concurrences and dissents
Concurrence — Justice Souter
Justice Souter argued the law is content neutral because it targets the manner of approach, not the substance of any message, and stressed that a stationary speaker remains completely free to say anything. He found the law's vagueness and overbreadth concerns minor on a facial challenge, since the scienter requirement and narrow practical reach limited any real risk of chilling protected speech.
Dissent — Justice Scalia
Justice Scalia argued the law is plainly content based because whether someone violates it depends entirely on whether their speech counts as protest, education, or counseling, so officers must examine what is said. He contended the majority relied on a government interest -- protecting a 'right to be let alone' -- that Colorado itself disclaimed, and that the law fails strict scrutiny and is a content-based, prophylactic restriction that flouts basic First Amendment doctrine.
Dissent — Justice Kennedy
“The Fourteenth Amendment does not permit a State to make criminal the peaceful expression of unpopular views.”Kennedy's central objection that the law criminalizes peaceful speech based on its content.
Justice Kennedy argued the law is both content based and viewpoint based in practice, since it was designed to target abortion opponents specifically and requires officials to judge the substance of speech to enforce it. He also argued the law is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, forecloses the only effective way for sidewalk counselors to communicate with women approaching clinics, and conflicts with the balance struck in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The Court first asked whether the law was content neutral, applying the principle from Ward v. Rock Against Racism that a regulation of speech is content neutral if it wasn't adopted because the government disagreed with the message being conveyed, and if it applies without regard to what viewpoint or subject is being discussed.
- It found the law regulates a place-based conduct (approaching within eight feet) rather than banning any message, and applies evenhandedly to any speaker -- used car salesmen, missionaries, or protesters alike -- so it does not single out a viewpoint or subject matter for suppression.
- Having concluded the law was content neutral, the Court applied the more lenient standard for time, place, and manner rules: the regulation must be narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest and must leave open ample alternative channels for communication, without needing to be the least restrictive option available.
- The Court found Colorado's interest in protecting people entering health facilities from close, unwanted confrontation and protecting orderly access was significant, and that the eight-foot buffer was a modest, prophylactic measure that still let speakers use signs, voices, and even offered leaflets from a short distance.
- Because speakers could remain stationary, use amplification, and still be seen and heard, and because leafletters could hold out their material for pedestrians to accept, the Court concluded the law left open ample alternative means of communication and satisfied the narrow-tailoring requirement.
- The Court also rejected separate vagueness, overbreadth, and prior-restraint challenges, reasoning that the law's scienter requirement and common-sense terms gave adequate notice, that its broad coverage across all health facilities was evidence of neutrality rather than a flaw, and that it created no official censorship power over speech.
Doctrinal impact
Cases affected by this decision
Reaffirms Ward v. Rock Against Racism (491 U.S. 781)
The Court leans on Ward's content-neutrality and narrow-tailoring test as the controlling framework for analyzing the statute.
Distinguishes Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western N.Y. (519 U.S. 357)
The Court distinguishes this statute's fixed eight-foot approach limit from the larger, harder-to-administer floating buffer zone struck down in Schenck.