McCullen v. Coakley

Background

A group of people who practice "sidewalk counseling" — approaching women near abortion clinics to offer alternatives and literature — sued Massachusetts officials after the State replaced a prior law with a 2007 amendment creating fixed 35-foot buffer zones on public sidewalks around clinics. The law made it a crime to knowingly enter or remain within those marked areas during clinic hours, but exempted clinic employees, certain municipal workers, people entering the facility, and passersby. Violations carried fines and possible jail time.

Reasoning

The Court considered whether sidewalks are public forums for speech (they are) and applied the usual test for time, place, and manner rules. The majority said the statute was content neutral on its face but failed the "narrowly tailored" part of the test because it burdened close, personal conversations and leafleting far more than necessary to protect safety or access. The Court pointed to less-restrictive alternatives (criminal obstruction laws, targeted injunctions, local traffic rules, or harassment ordinances) and found the State had not shown those would fail. The result: the law was held unconstitutional and the court below was reversed.

Real world impact

The ruling removes the fixed 35-foot exclusion zones in Massachusetts and restores the ability of counselors and protestors to stand nearer clinic entrances on public sidewalks. Clinics can still rely on anti-obstruction laws, local ordinances, and tailored injunctions to address real safety or access problems. The decision also highlights tensions among the Justices about exemptions and viewpoint concerns, so future laws may be crafted more narrowly.

Dissents or concurrances

Several Justices concurred in the judgment but disagreed about why the law is invalid: some argued it discriminated against viewpoint directly because of the employee exemption, while others criticized the majority’s analysis of content neutrality.