Lawson v. Murray

Background

A doctor who performs abortions and his wife sued a group of antiabortion demonstrators after the protesters walked single-file past the couple’s house on January 20, 1991. The demonstration involved about 57 people, lasted about an hour, was escorted by police, and produced no reported trespass, violence, or disorder. The trial court denied the couple monetary damages but then issued an injunction barring picketing within 300 feet of their home; state appellate courts affirmed that injunction.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court declined to review the state-court decision. Justice Scalia wrote a concurrence explaining his view that the New Jersey injunction is problematic. He argued that courts may only issue speech-restricting injunctions as remedies for unlawful or imminently unlawful conduct, and that an injunction against otherwise peaceful, lawful picketing operates as a prior restraint on speech. He relied on earlier cases discussing prior restraints and warned that treating equitable “public policy” alone as a basis for such injunctions risks suppressing lawful speech.

Real world impact

Because the Justices denied review, the state-court injunction remains in effect for this dispute, limiting where these protesters may demonstrate near the doctor’s home. Justice Scalia cautioned that similar injunctions could chill lawful protest and give judges broad discretion to curb controversial speech. The denial is not a final ruling on the constitutional issue, and Scalia noted alternative legal theories (such as a “captive audience” rationale) that could leave the broader question unresolved.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Scalia concurred in the denial of review but criticized the expansion of prior-restraint doctrine and urged that the Court clarify limits announced in prior cases.