Hill v. Colorado
Headline: State may ban approaching within eight feet near health-care entrances; Court upheld Colorado’s law limiting close leafleting and counseling, affecting protesters and counselors near clinics statewide.
Holding: The Court affirmed, ruling that Colorado may criminalize knowingly approaching within eight feet of someone near a health‑care entrance to hand out leaflets, display signs, or give oral counseling without consent as a constitutional time, place, and manner restriction.
- Allows states to enforce eight‑foot approach limits near health‑care entrances.
- Makes close‑range leafleting and face‑to‑face counseling harder without consent.
- Protects patients from unwanted close approaches while preserving distant protest.
Summary
Background
A group of anti‑abortion ‘‘sidewalk counselors’’ challenged a 1993 Colorado law that makes it a crime to knowingly approach within eight feet of another person, without that person’s consent, within 100 feet of any health‑care entrance for the purpose of passing a leaflet, displaying a sign, or engaging in oral protest, education, or counseling. The counselors said their usual practices often involve being that close and that the law chilled their speech. Lower state courts upheld the statute and the Supreme Court granted review after further proceedings including a remand in light of a prior buffer‑zone case.
Reasoning
The Court majority held the law constitutional as a content‑neutral time, place, and manner restriction. It explained the law regulates where and how speech occurs, not its content; it applies to all viewpoints; and the State’s interests in preserving safe, unimpeded access to health care and protecting patients from unwanted close approaches are unrelated to message content. Applying the Ward test, the Court found the 8‑foot rule narrowly tailored to those interests, left ample alternatives (speakers may remain stationary, signs and speech can be effective at that distance, and leaflets can be proffered), and rejected claims that the law was vague, overbroad, or an unlawful prior restraint.
Real world impact
The decision allows Colorado to criminally bar uninvited, close‑up approaches near health‑care entrances, making hand‑to‑hand leafleting and close face‑to‑face counseling harder without consent. It preserves protest and sign displays at a small distance but limits how speakers may initiate contact with clinic patrons, while leaving open other protest methods.
Dissents or concurrances
A concurrence agreed with the result but emphasized careful limits on content‑based rules. Dissents argued the law is content‑based, vague, and overbroad and warned it burdens core one‑on‑one persuasion outside clinics.
Opinions in this case:
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?