Lawson v. Murray

Background

Anti-abortion protesters were enjoined from carrying signs near a doctor’s home. The injunction bans generalized antiabortion signs and signs naming the doctor as an abortionist along the public street bordering the 1.25‑acre property (a 330‑foot front property line and an 80‑foot setback). It also restricts sign-carrying beyond that zone and around the house, allowing only picketing by up to 15 people for no more than one hour every two weeks and only with 24 hours’ notice to police. The dispute has returned to the courts multiple times after similar injunctions at the family’s previous home were reconsidered following earlier Supreme Court guidance.

Reasoning

The Court declined to review the New Jersey courts’ revised injunction, effectively leaving those tight limits in place. The lower courts approved the restraining terms despite there being no record of violence, traffic disruption, or other unlawful acts by the protesters. Justice Scalia, in a concurrence, warned that the lower court relied on a "captive audience" theory and that the larger constitutional question—whether a prior restraint on speech can be imposed without any actual or threatened illegality—remains difficult to address.

Real world impact

Left in place, the injunction sharply limits where and how anti-abortion protesters may speak near this residence, cutting down on spontaneous or sustained sidewalk demonstrations. Protesters must follow strict numeric, timing, and notice rules, which makes regular public protests harder. Because the Supreme Court only denied review rather than deciding the full merits, the legal rules could still change if the issue returns for a full decision.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Scalia called the restriction an unprecedented silencing of speech and said it "makes a mockery of First Amendment law," yet he joined the denial of review for the reasons he had given earlier.