Future Retirement Success
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Stocks
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Stocks

Future Retirement Success

Politics

SCOTUS turns down abortion clinic buffer zone challenge, Thomas slams ‘abdication’ of duty

by February 24, 2025
February 24, 2025

The U.S. Supreme Court declined Monday to hear a pro-life challenge against protest restrictions around abortion clinics in Illinois, as activists argued the laws infringe on their First Amendment rights, a decision met with a fiery dissent by Justice Clarence Thomas.

The court rejected appeals from Coalition Life, which describes itself as ‘America’s Largest Professional Sidewalk Counseling Organization’ in New Jersey and Illinois, which had challenged previous lower court rulings that dismissed their lawsuits. 

Pro-life activists in the case argued that ‘buffer zones’ – which were established after a previous Supreme Court decision in Colorado to shield patients from harassment – around abortion clinics violate their First Amendment rights to free speech.

Thomas and fellow conservative Justice Samuel Alito dissented, with Thomas arguing SCOTUS should have taken up the case, Coalition Life v. City of Carbondale, Illinois. Alito did not explain his reasoning in writing.

The votes of four justices are required to grant a writ of certiorari to bring a case up for review.

Thomas said Hill v. Colorado ‘has been seriously undermined, if not completely eroded, and our refusal to provide clarity is an abdication of our judicial duty.’ He added that he would’ve used the Coalition Life case to override the Hill decision.

‘This case would have allowed us to provide needed clarity to lower courts,’ Thomas wrote in his dissent.

In that case, decided in 2000, the Supreme Court upheld a Colorado statute that prohibited individuals from ‘knowingly’ approaching within eight feet of another person within 100 feet of a healthcare facility entrance, without consent, for purposes such as passing out literature, displaying signs, or engaging in oral protest, education, or counseling. 

The court determined this law was a content-neutral regulation of the time, place and manner of speech, serving the state’s interest in protecting individuals entering healthcare facilities from unwanted communication. The decision was 6-3, with Justices Thomas, Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy dissenting.

The City of Carbondale, in southern Illinois, saw an uptick in pro-life protests after two clinics opened following the overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022. As such, the city passed ordinances modeled after Colorado’s statutes.

Urging the court to revisit the Hill precedent, Thomas quoted from an excerpt in Alito’s majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Center – the case that overturned Roe v. Wade – where he noted that abortion-related cases on other legal precedents had ‘distorted First Amendment doctrines.’

One key case that followed Hill v. Colorado is McCullen v. Coakley, where the Supreme Court ruled in 2014 on a Massachusetts law that established a 35-foot buffer zone around abortion clinics. The high court found that while the state had a legitimate interest in protecting patients and staff from harassment, the law was overly broad, included too much space and infringed on free speech rights.

The court struck down the law, distinguishing it from the Hill decision.

In 2019, New York upheld a 15-foot buffer zone law outside of clinics, and similar laws have been debated in states like California, Maryland and Washington.

Fox News Digital has reached out to Coalition Life for comment. 

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS
0
FacebookTwitterGoogle +Pinterest
previous post
US-Ukraine rift breaks out at United Nations on 3rd anniversary of the war
next post
DOGE cuts, Medicaid fears spark protests at GOP lawmaker offices across US

You may also like

Texas AG Paxton slams ‘Soros-backed’ prosecutor after jury...

April 9, 2023

Kamala Harris plans to skip historic Al Smith...

September 22, 2024

Ex-New York Gov Andrew Cuomo to face House...

June 11, 2024

Arizona judge denies request for sanctions against Lake,...

December 28, 2022

Biden admin vows to hold Chinese hackers responsible...

July 17, 2023

Texas court tosses billionaire’s defamation suit against Beto...

June 10, 2023

UN says widespread sexual violence in Sudan is...

November 1, 2024

“Everything in Your Life Financially and Economically is...

September 25, 2022

Trump’s team still hasn’t signed transition of power...

November 22, 2024

Congress to Roll Back Covid-19 Vaccine Mandate For...

December 7, 2022

    Get free access to all of the retirement secrets and income strategies from our experts! or Join The Exclusive Subscription Today And Get the Premium Articles Acess for Free

    By opting in you agree to receive emails from us and our affiliates. Your information is secure and your privacy is protected.

    Recent Posts

    • Rutherford v. United States Brief: Defending the First Step Act

      August 15, 2025
    • Hawley opens probe into Meta after reports of AI romantic exchanges with minors

      August 15, 2025
    • Friday Feature: Braveheart Christian Academy

      August 15, 2025
    • From admiration to Alaska: A timeline of Trump and Putin’s high-stakes encounters

      August 15, 2025
    • Schumer claims Trump admin withholding Epstein files, threatens to sue

      August 15, 2025
    • UK prices for Mounjaro weight-loss jab to rise by up to 170% after Trump pressure on drugmakers

      August 15, 2025

    Categories

    • Business (8,796)
    • Investing (2,217)
    • Politics (16,392)
    • Stocks (3,228)
    • About us
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms & Conditions

    Disclaimer: futureretirementsuccess.com, its managers, its employees, and assigns (collectively “The Company”) do not make any guarantee or warranty about what is advertised above. Information provided by this website is for research purposes only and should not be considered as personalized financial advice. The Company is not affiliated with, nor does it receive compensation from, any specific security. The Company is not registered or licensed by any governing body in any jurisdiction to give investing advice or provide investment recommendation. Any investments recommended here should be taken into consideration only after consulting with your investment advisor and after reviewing the prospectus or financial statements of the company.

    Copyright © 2025 futureretirementsuccess.com | All Rights Reserved