Winfield v. Kaplan
Headline: Court declines to review and leaves a local temporary injunction blocking anti‑abortion protesters from picketing or demonstrating on a party’s street and within 300 feet, despite a Justice’s dissent.
Holding:
- Leaves a temporary injunction blocking anti‑abortion protests on a local street and within 300 feet in place.
- Keeps limits on picketing, marching, and demonstrating enforced while further proceedings continue.
- Creates uncertainty for state courts about applying the Court’s recent Madsen guidance.
Summary
Background
In Greensboro, North Carolina, anti‑abortion protesters were subject to a state trial court’s preliminary injunction. The order barred them from picketing, parading, marching, or demonstrating anywhere on the opposing party’s street or within 300 feet of the center line of that street. The North Carolina Court of Appeals upheld the injunction, and the state’s highest court declined further review. The protesters then asked the U.S. Supreme Court to consider their case.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court held the petition pending its decision in Madsen v. Women’s Health Center and later issued Madsen. Part III‑E of Madsen found an injunction forbidding protests within 300 feet of clinic employees’ residences unconstitutional, a restriction the dissent says is materially like the one here. Justice Scalia, joined by Justices Kennedy and Thomas, argued the Court should have granted review, vacated the lower-court judgment, and sent the case back for reconsideration in light of Madsen. Instead, the Court denied review and left the preliminary injunction standing.
Real world impact
Because the Supreme Court declined to hear the case, the temporary injunction remains in effect and continues to limit the protesters’ ability to demonstrate where specified. The dissent warns this outcome leaves a direct restriction on speech under the First Amendment in place and may confuse state courts about how to apply the Madsen decision when deciding permanent relief. The Supreme Court’s action was not a final, merits ruling on the injunction’s constitutionality.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Scalia wrote the dissent from the denial of review, joined by Justices Kennedy and Thomas, explaining why the Court should have acted to correct the lower-court injunction after Madsen.
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?