protest zone decision

7/29/2019 Protest Zone Decision

1/74

UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE

DI STRI CT OF VERMONT

AGNES CLI FT, AMY COCHRAN, :

MOLLY J ESSE, J EAN OSBORNE, :RI TA MANTONE, and BRI DGET :MOUNT, :

Pl ai nt i f f s, :: Case no. 2: 12- cv- 214

v. ::

Ci t y of Bur l i ngt on, Ver mont , ::

Def endant . ::

Memor andum Opi ni on and Or der

Si x Ver mont r esi dent s, Agnes Cl i f t , Amy Cochr an, Mol l y

J esse, Ri t a Mant one, Br i dget Mount , and J ean Osborne ( t he

Pl ai nt i f f s) have br ought f aci al and as- appl i ed chal l enges t o

t he const i t ut i onal i t y of Bur l i ngt on Code 21- 113( 2) ( t he

Or di nance) under 42 U. S. C. 1983. The Or di nance cr eat es a

f i xed buf f er zone extendi ng 35 f eet f r om t he pr emi ses of a

r epr oduct i ve heal t h car e f aci l i t y ( RHCF) wi t hi n whi ch

i ndi vi dual s may not knowi ngl y congr egat e, pat r ol , pi cket or

demonst r at e unl ess t hey f al l wi t hi n one of f i ve exempt i ons.

The Pl ai nt i f f s cl ai m t hat t he Or di nance vi ol at es t hei r Fi r st and

Four t eent h Amendment r i ght s because i t di scr i mi nates on t he

basi s of cont ent and vi ewpoi nt ; because i t i s an i nval i d t i me,

pl ace, and manner r est r i ct i on; because i t i s subst ant i al l y

Case 2:12-cv-00214-wks Document 29 Filed 02/19/13 Page 1 of 74


2/74

2

over br oad; and because i t i s unconst i t ut i onal l y vague. Compl .

142- 97, ECF No. 1.

Bef or e t he Cour t ar e t wo mot i ons. For t he r easons st at ed

bel ow, t he Cour t gr ant s t he Ci t y s Mot i on t o Di smi ss t he f aci al

chal l enges t o t he Or di nance, ECF No. 13, and deni es Pl ai nt i f f s

Mot i on f or a Pr el i mi nar y I nj unct i on, ECF No. 8.

BACKGROUND

I . The Or di nanceOn J ul y 16, 2012, t he Bur l i ngt on Ci t y Counci l ( t he

Counci l ) amended t he Ci t y s Code of Or di nances by adopt i ng a

new ar t i cl e, Ar t i cl e I X, Heal t h Cent er Buf f er Zones. Bur l i ngt on

Ci t y Or di nance ( BCO) 21- 111 et seq. Ar t i cl e I X consi sts of

f i ve secti ons.

Sect i on 21- 111 l i st s t he Counci l s f i ndi ngs. The Counci l

r ecogni zed t he need t o bal ance i ndi vi dual s' Fi r st Amendment

r i ght t o speak f or or agai nst cer t ai n medi cal pr ocedur es wi t h

ot her i ndi vi dual s r i ght t o obt ai n medi cal counsel i ng and

t r eat ment i n an unobst r uct ed manner . BCO 21- 111. The

Counci l expl ai ned t hat i n adopt i ng t he Or di nance, i t s i nt ent i on

was

t o ensur e publ i c saf et y and or der , r egul at e the use ofpubl i c si dewal ks and ot her conduct , pr omot e the f r ee f l owof t r af f i c on st r eet s and si dewal ks, r educe di sput es andconf r ont at i ons r equi r i ng l aw enf or cement ser vi ces, pr ot ectpr oper t y r i ght s, pr ot ect Fi r st Amendment f r eedoms of speechand expr essi on and secur e a per son s r i ght t o seekr epr oduct i ve heal t h car e ser vi ces.



3/74

3

I d. And t he Counci l concl uded t hat t he l i mi t ed buf f er zone

est abl i shed by t he Ar t i cl e was necessary t o ensur e that

pat i ent s have uni mpeded access t o r epr oduct i ve heal t h care

servi ces whi l e al so ensur i ng t hat t he Fi r st Amendment r i ght s of

peopl e t o communi cate t hei r message t o t hei r i nt ended audi ence

i s not undul y rest r i ct ed or over bur dened. I d.

Sect i on 21- 112 def i nes sever al t erms used t hr oughout

Ar t i cl e I X:

( 1) Repr oduct i ve Heal t h Car e Faci l i t i es shal l mean anybui l di ng, st r uct ur e or pl ace, or any por t i on t her eof , atwhi ch l i censed, cer t i f i ed, or ot her wi se l egal l y aut hor i zedper sons pr ovi de heal t h car e servi ces or heal t h car ecounsel i ng rel at i ng to t he human repr oduct i ve syst em.

( 2) Buf f er Zone means an area of pr otect i on sur r oundi ngt he pr emi ses of a Repr oduct i ve Heal t h Car e Faci l i t y t hathas a t hi r t y- f i ve ( 35) f oot r adi us ext endi ng i n al ldi r ecti ons.

( 3) Pr emi ses of a Repr oduct i ve Heal t h Car e Faci l i t y shal lmean t he dr i veway, ent r ance, ent r yway, or exi t of aRepr oduct i ve Heal t h Car e Faci l i t y and any par ki ng l ot i nwhi ch t he f aci l i t y has an owner shi p, easement or l easehol di nt er est or ot her pr oper t y ri ght .

( 4) Per son shal l i ncl ude, but i s not l i mi t ed t o1. I ndi vi dual s;2. Cor por at i ons;3. Not - f or pr of i t or gani zat i ons;4. Par t ner shi ps;5. Associ at i ons; and6. Gr oups or ot her ent i t i es.

I d. at 21- 112.

Sect i on 21- 113 cont ai ns t wo separ at e pr ovi si ons.

Subsect i on ( 1) , whi ch i s not chal l enged by Pl ai nt i f f s, pr ohi bi t s



4/74

4

i ndi vi dual s f r om knowi ngl y obst r uct i ng, det ai ni ng, hi nder i ng,

i mpedi ng or bl ocki ng anot her per son f r om ent er i ng or exi t i ng an

RHCF. Subsect i on ( 1) does not appl y t o cer t ai n muni ci pal agent s

such as f i r emen and ut i l i t y wor ker s nor t o empl oyees or agent s

of an RHCF act i ng wi t hi n t he scope of t hei r empl oyment .

Subsect i on ( 2) , t he pr ovi si on at i ssue i n t hi s sui t , st at es t hat

[ n] o per son or per sons shal l knowi ngl y congr egat e, pat r ol ,

pi cket or demonst r at e i n t he Buf f er Zone. I d. at 21- 113( 2) .

Subsect i on ( 2) expr essl y exempt s f i ve cat egor i es of i ndi vi dual s

f r om t hi s gener al pr ohi bi t i on: ( 1) per sons ent er i ng or l eavi ng

[ an RHCF] ; ( 2) empl oyees or agent s of [ an RHCF] act i ng wi t hi n

t he scope of t hei r empl oyment ; ( 3) l aw enf orcement , ambul ance,

f i r ef i ght i ng, constr uct i on, ut i l i t i es, publ i c wor ks, and ot her

muni ci pal agent s act i ng wi t hi n t he scope of t hei r empl oyment ;

( 4) per sons usi ng t he publ i c si dewal k or st r eet r i ght - of - way

adj acent t o such f aci l i t y sol el y f or t he pur pose of r eachi ng a

dest i nat i on ot her t han such f aci l i t y; and ( 5) any per son or

per sons on pr i vat e pr oper t y havi ng t he consent of t he pr oper t y

owner . I d.

Sect i on 21- 114 aut hor i zes ci vi l penal t i es r angi ng f r om

f i f t y t o f i ve hundr ed dol l ar s f or vi ol at i ons of t he Ar t i cl e.

Sect i on 21- 115 cont ai ns a sever abi l i t y cl ause.



5/74

5

I I . Pl anned Par ent hoodA. The Buf f er ZoneThe Pl ai nt i f f s al l ege t hat t he Or di nance, whi ch came i nto

ef f ect on August 15, 2012, has sever el y di sr upt ed t hei r abi l i t y

t o appr oach, counsel , and di st r i but e i nf or mat i on t o i ndi vi dual s

appr oachi ng Pl anned Par ent hood s Bur l i ngt on Heal t h Cent er

( Pl anned Par ent hood) at 183 St . Paul St r eet . St . Paul St r eet

r uns nor t h t o sout h and has t wo t r avel l i ng l anes ( one i n each

di r ect i on) and par ki ng spaces on bot h shoul der s. Tr af f i c i s

i nt er mi t t ent , and noi se l evel s var y t hr oughout t he day. On bot h

si des of t he st r eet , t her e i s a smal l st r i p of gr ass and a

publ i c si dewal k r unni ng par al l el t o t he r oad. Pl anned

Par ent hood occupi es a si ngl e bui l di ng wi t h a mai n ent r ance

accessi bl e f r om t he si dewal k on t he west si de of t he st r eet .

Pl anned Par ent hood al so l eases sever al par ki ng spaces f or i t s

cl i ent s i n a pr i vat el y- owned l ot l ocat ed di r ect l y sout h of t he

bui l di ng, Compl . 37- 40; however , t he l ot i s not i n use at t he

moment because an undergr ound parki ng f aci l i t y i s under

const r uct i on. 1 See Pl s. Exs. 12- 14.

The l ayout of t he buf f er zone at Pl anned Par ent hood i s not

di sput ed. I t consi st s of t wo ar eas: a hal f - ci r cl e wi t h a r adi us

of 35 f eet cent er ed on t he mai n ent r ance of t he f aci l i t y and a

1 For t he pur poses of t he i nst ant mot i ons, t he Cour t wi l l pr esume t hatt he par ki ng l ot i s par t of t he pr emi ses of Pl anned Par ent hood, despi t et he f act t hat i t i s cur r ent l y under const r ucti on.



6/74

6

quasi - t r apezoi d2 ext endi ng 35 f eet t o t he nor t h, sout h, and east

of t he l ot . See Def . Ex. A. The t wo ar eas over l ap, causi ng a

cont i nuous 228- f oot st r et ch of si dewal k t o f al l wi t hi n t he

buf f er zone. 3 Compl . 43. Because t he west cur b of St . Paul

St r eet i s 22 f eet f r om t he f aci l i t y, t he buf f er zone ext ends as

much as 13 f eet i nt o t he st r eet , j ust shor t of t he l i nes t hat

di vi de t he t r avel l i ng l anes. 4 I d. at 38; Def . Ex. A.

B. Appl i cat i on of t he Or di nanceThe buf f er zone at Pl anned Parent hood does not prevent

i ndi vi dual s f r om congr egat i ng, pat r ol l i ng, pi cket i ng, or

demonst r at i ng once t hey are 35 f eet or more away f r om t he mai n

ent r ance and par ki ng l ot of t he f aci l i t y. I n t heor y, t hi s means

a person coul d occupy any space al ong t he edge of t he buf f er

zone; however , because of wher e i t f al l s i n r el at i on t o St . Paul

St r eet , i ndi vi dual s may congr egat e, pat r ol , pi cket , and

demonst r at e i n t hr ee st r et ches by Pl anned Par ent hood. Fi r st ,

t hey may st and sout h of t he buf f er zone on the same si de of t he

st r eet as t he f aci l i t y, a l ocat i on t hat i s 193 f eet f r om t he

mai n ent r ance. The Pl ai nt i f f s sel dom occupy t hi s l ocat i on.

Second, t hey may st and nort h of t he buf f er zone, where they are

2 I n st r i ct geomet r i cal t er ms, t hi s por t i on of t he Pl anned Par ent hoodbuf f er zone i s not a t r apezoi d because i t s l egs are rounded.3 The mai n ent r ance i s 58 f eet f r omt he nort her nmost edge of t he l ot .Onl y i f t he di st ance between t hese poi nts were more than 70 f eet woul dt her e be a compl et e gap bet ween the 35 f oot buf f er zone around t heent r ance and t he 35 f oot zone around t he l ot .4 Al l di st ances are r ounded t o t he near est f oot and are appr oxi mat e.



7/74

7

r oughl y 35 f eet f r om t he mai n ent r ance. Thi s l ocat i on i s

di r ectl y i n f r ont of a hai r sal on, and al t hough Pl ai nt i f f s

occasi onal l y st and t her e, t hey gener al l y t r y t o avoi d i t t o

accommodat e the sal on- owner s concer ns t hat t hei r act i vi t i es

woul d har m hi s busi ness. 5 Fi nal l y, t he Pl ai nt i f f s may st and on

t he opposi t e si de of St . Paul St r eet , across f r om Pl anned

Par ent hood s mai n ent r ance or par ki ng l ot . Thi s has been t he

pr i mar y l ocat i on of t he Pl ai nt i f f s act i vi t i es s i nce t he

Or di nance came i nt o ef f ect , and f r om t hat ar ea, t he Pl ai nt i f f s

ar e at l east 68 f eet f r om t he mai n ent r ance t o Pl anned

Par ent hood. Compl . 46. Af t er t he Or di nance came i nt o ef f ect ,

t he Ci t y mar ked of f t he l ast met er ed par ki ng spot on t he east

si de of St . Paul St r eet f or Pl ai nt i f f s so t hat t hey woul d be

mor e vi si bl e t o per sons ent er i ng or exi t i ng Pl anned Par ent hood.

I d. 47.

Al t hough t he Pl ai nt i f f s ar e wi l l i ng t o shar e t hei r vi ews

wi t h passers - by and t o pr ovi de i nf or mat i on t o i ndi vi dual s

l eavi ng t he f aci l i t y, t hei r t ar get audi ence i s women who ar e

ent er i ng Pl anned Par ent hood t o r ecei ve counsel i ng or medi cal

ser vi ces. I n t he Pl ai nt i f f s exper i ence, cl ose, per sonal

cont act wi t h t hat audi ence i s t he most ef f ect i ve way to

communi cate t hei r message. Though each of t he Pl ai nt i f f s

5 Ther e i s no al l egat i on t hat any Ci t y of f i ci al has r equest ed t hat t hePl ai nt i f f s vacat e t hi s l ocat i on.



8/74

8

expr esses her sel f i n a sl i ght l y di f f er ent manner , t hey al l agr ee

t hat shout i ng f r om a di st ance i s gener al l y count er - pr oduct i ve.

I n an af f i davi t , Ms. Cl i f t expl ai ned,

I have f ound t hat cl ose personal communi cat i on, i n a normalconver sat i onal voi ce l evel , wi t h a ki nd, gent l e voi ce, andwi t h eye cont act , usi ng ver y f ew wor ds- f r om a di st ance ofsi x t o t en f eet - i s t he onl y way t o ef f ect i vel y communi cat ewi t h women at Pl anned Par ent hood. I have f ound t hat eyecont act and a smi l e ar e ver y i mpor t ant t o get t hese woment o be r esponsi ve. I of t en mer el y ask t hem i f t hey woul dpl ease t ake my br ochur e. My exper i ence t el l s me t hatcommuni cat i ng i n t hi s manner i s t he best way t o pr ovi dei nf ormat i on and assi st ance to women seeki ng abort i on.

Cl i f t . Dec. , ECF No. 8- 10, 27.

The Pl ai nt i f f s cl ai m t hat i ndi vi dual s ent er i ng t he f aci l i t y

cannot hear t hem f r om any of t he l ocat i ons out si de of t he buf f er

zone unl ess t hey shout . The physi cal separ at i on i mposed by t he

buf f er zone combi ned wi t h ambi ent noi se on t he st r eet f r om

t r af f i c or const r uct i on occasi onal l y pr event s t hem f r om bei ng

heard at al l . The Pl ai nt i f f s abi l i t y t o di s tr i but e l eaf l et s

has al so been si gni f i cant l y compr omi sed. Many i ndi vi dual s

ent er i ng t he f aci l i t y ar r i ve by car and ei t her par k or ar e

dr opped of f wi t hi n t he buf f er zone. Theor et i cal l y, t he

Pl ai nt i f f s may st i l l r each per sons ar r i vi ng by f oot ; however , i t

can be har d t o i dent i f y whet her a pedest r i an i s headi ng t o t he

f aci l i t y or si mpl y wal ki ng past unt i l t hat i ndi vi dual has

ent er ed t he buf f er zone. I n f act , i n t he mont hs si nce t he

Or di nance came i nt o ef f ect , onl y once have t he Pl ai nt i f f s gi ven



9/74

9

a l eaf l et t o a per son ent er i ng or l eavi ng t he f aci l i t y. The

buf f er zone i nt er f er es l ess wi t h Pl ai nt i f f s ot her act i vi t i es,

whi ch i ncl ude hol di ng si gns, engagi ng i n si l ent and vocal

pr ayer , cal l i ng out t o i ndi vi dual s ent er i ng t he f aci l i t y, and

si ngi ng. The buf f er zone has no i mpact on t he Pl ai nt i f f s

abi l i t y t o communi cat e wi t h i ndi vi dual s who vol unt ar i l y l eave

t he buf f er zone t o speak wi t h t hem or t o pi ck up a l eaf l et ;

however , i n pr act i ce, t hat i s a r el at i vel y r ar e event .

None of t he Pl ai nt i f f s have r ecei ved t i cket s f or vi ol at i ng

t he buf f er zone at Pl anned Parent hood, but t hey have r ecei ved

ver bal and wr i t t en war ni ngs f r om of f i cer s of t he Bur l i ngt on

Pol i ce Depar t ment . For exampl e, on August 15, 2012, Pl ai nt i f f

J ean Osborne wal ked i nto t he buf f er zone t o of f er a l eaf l et t o a

coupl e t hat was appr oachi ng Pl anned Par ent hood on f oot . Compl .

61. Af t er t he coupl e decl i ned, Osbor ne r et ur ned t o t he edge

of t he buf f er zone. I d. Shor t l y t her eaf t er , Of f i cer Mi ke

Warr en ar r i ved on t he scene and spoke wi t h Osbor ne. Of f i cer

Warr en warned her t hat she woul d be t i cket ed i f she cont i nued t o

t r y t o di st r i but e l eaf l et s i nsi de t he buf f er zone. I d. When

Osbor ne obj ect ed on the gr ounds t hat l eaf l et i ng was not

expl i ci t l y pr ohi bi t ed under t he Or di nance, Of f i cer War r en

r epl i ed t hat any act i vi t y i nsi de t he zone was pr ohi bi t ed.

Lat er t hat day, anot her one of t he Pl ai nt i f f s, Amy Cochr an,

ent er ed t he buf f er zone t o r ead her pr ayer book on a gr ass s t r i p



10/74

10

next t o t he si dewal k i n f r ont of Pl anned Par ent hood. I d. 62.

Of f i cer Ki m Shel l ey of t he Bur l i ngt on Pol i ce Depar t ment

r esponded t o a cal l r epor t i ng a vi ol at i on of t he buf f er zone.

Upon her ar r i val , Of f i cer Shel l ey observed Amy Cochr an kneel i ng

down on t he gr eenbel t acr oss f r om t he ent r ance t o t he f aci l i t y.

Def . Ex. G. Shel l ey hear d Cochr an mumbl i ng somet hi ng about

God and hel p these women. I d. Shel l ey t hen spoke wi t h

Cochr an about t he Or di nance and expl ai ned t hat no demonst r at i ng

was per mi t t ed wi t hi n 35 f eet of t he bui l di ng. I d. Shel l ey

i ssued Cochr an a wr i t t en war ni ng, escor t ed her out of t he buf f er

zone, and i nf ormed her of an i nf ormat i onal meet i ng about t he

Or di nance t hat woul d be t aki ng pl ace at Ci t y Hal l l at er i n t he

day. I d. ; Pl s . Ex. 18.

On t he morni ng of J anuary 23, 2013, Bar r y Kade, a pr o-

choi ce and f r ee speech act i vi st , began di st r i but i ng l eaf l et s i n

f r ont of Pl anned Par ent hood. Kade s l eaf l et s expr essed

opposi t i on t o t he Or di nance and asked ci t y resi dent s t o cal l f or

i t s repeal . Af t er 20 mi nut es, t wo Bur l i ngt on pol i ce of f i cer s

arr i ved on t he scene and r equest ed t hat Kade l eave. Kade

r ef used t o do so unl ess he was gi ven a t i cket or a wr i t t en

war ni ng. One of t he of f i cer s, Li eut enant Kat hl een St ubbi ng,

ent ered Pl anned Par ent hood t o speak wi t h empl oyees of t he

f aci l i t y. When she emerged a f ew mi nut es l ater , Kade i nf ormed

her t hat he woul d be l eavi ng t he buf f er zone but r equest ed t hat



11/74

11

she l et hi m know when of f i cer s woul d begi n i ssui ng t i cket s f or

vi ol at i ons of t he Or di nance. See Pl s. Ex. 20. Lat er that

week, Kade sent an emai l t o Li eut enant St ubbi ng aski ng her

whet her she woul d have gi ven hi m a t i cket i f he had st ayed. She

si mpl y r esponded that t he pol i ce depar t ment r emai ns i n the

educat i onal phase [ i n] r ef er ence [ t o] t hi s or di nance. I d.

On August 15, 2012 and at other t i mes si nce t he Or di nance

came i nt o ef f ect , Pl anned Par ent hood empl oyees or agent s have

been st at i oned at t he mai n ent r ance t o escor t i ndi vi dual s

appr oachi ng t he ent r ance. I d. 60, 63, 65- 66. The Pl ai nt i f f s

al l ege t hat t hese escor t s have on at l east t wo occasi ons

i nt er f er ed wi t h t hei r ef f or t s t o communi cat e wi t h peopl e

ent er i ng Pl anned Par ent hood. For i nst ance, on August 29, 2012,

Cochr an was st andi ng at t he nort h end of t he buf f er zone wi t h a

si gn contai ni ng t he words I REGRET MY ABORTI ON. Cochran

cl ai ms t hat when t wo i ndi vi dual s appr oached t he mai n ent r ance

f r om t he sout h, t wo Pl anned Par ent hood escor t s wal ked i n f r ont

of and al ongsi de t hem i n a manner t hat bl ocked t hei r vi ew of

Cochran s si gn. And on September 5, 2012, a mal e and f emal e

were st andi ng t ogether out si de Pl anned Par ent hood smoki ng

ci gar et t es. When Pl ai nt i f f Br i dget Mount cal l ed out t o t he

coupl e and of f er ed i nf or mat i on, a Pl anned Par ent hood escor t l ed

t hem i nt o t he bui l di ng.



12/74

12

Rebecca Gal vi n, who ser ved as a vol unt eer escor t at Pl anned

Par ent hood whi l e t he Or di nance was i n ef f ect ( and has si nce been

hi r ed as a par t - t i me empl oyee) t est i f i ed t hat she and ot her

escor t s ar e t r ai ned t o gr eet cl i ent s and t o wal k t hem t o t he

ent r ance of Pl anned Par ent hood wi t hout engagi ng t hemi n any

subst ant i ve conver sat i on. 6 Pl anned Par ent hood i nst r uct s escor t s

6 The Cour t engaged Gal van i n t he f ol l owi ng di al ogue:

THE COURT: When you ar e ser vi ng as an escor t , an out door escor t ,

someone i s appr oachi ng Pl anned Par ent hood f or ser vi ces, you goout and meet t hem wi t hi n the buf f er zone?

THE WI TNESS: Wi t hi n t he buf f er zone. Because t here' s a di st ancebet ween t he par ki ng l ot and t he ent r ance t o t he f aci l i t y, I havegone out t o t hat cor ner . I f t hey have par ked i n t he par ki ng l ot ,t hey' r e comi ng ar ound t he cor ner , I wi l l of t en go out t o be t her eand i dent i f y mysel f as an escor t and st at e t hat I wi l l - - t hat Iam goi ng t o j ust wal k t hem t o t he door , and t hat ' s about t heext ent of t hat i nt er act i on.

THE COURT: And what wi l l you t al k about ?

THE WI TNESS: I don' t - - I t r y not t o t al k. I j ust - - my i dea i sj ust t o provi de a physi cal presence i f t hey' r e - - and t hey of t enar e appear i ng al ar med or concer ned, and I wi l l j ust wal k wi t ht hem t o t he door , but t her e' s not conver sat i on.

THE COURT: I wonder i f t he st af f at Pl anned Par ent hood ar ei nst r uct ed t o say anythi ng i n r egar d t o t he ser vi ces t hat ar eprovi ded by Pl anned Par ent hood?

THE WI TNESS: No, we ar e i nst r uct ed not t o say anyt hi ng about t heservi ces t hat ar e pr ovi ded. I mean, we ar e - - we ar e - - asescor t s, we are neut r al and we are si mpl y there - -

THE COURT: Okay. So t hat t he - -

THE WI TNESS: - - f or support .

THE COURT: So t he communi cat i on wi t hi n t he buf f er zone between anescor t or empl oyee of Pl anned Parent hood and t he per son who i sseeki ng ser vi ces, essent i al l y, i s - - t her e' s no cont ent t o i t ?



13/74

13

not t o engage i n any advocacy, and i n Gal vi n s exper i ence, t hey

f ol l ow t hat di r ecti ve. Gal vi n al so t est i f i ed t hat despi t e t he

i nt er mi t t ent t r af f i c f l ow on St . Paul St r eet , she i s abl e t o

hear t he Pl ai nt i f f s when she i s st andi ng by t he ent r ance t o

Pl anned Parent hood. 7 She had no doubt t hat pat i ent s appr oachi ng

Pl anned Par ent hood coul d al so hear communi cat i ons f r omt he ot her

si de of t he st r eet because t hey of t en r eact ed wi t h f ear ,

conf usi on, or anger . 8

THE WI TNESS: Ther e shoul dn' t be any cont ent t o i t . I never hadany cont ent t o mi ne. I t was j ust t o i dent i f y, f i r st of al l , t hatI was - - t hat I was a par t of Pl anned Par ent hood because, aspat i ent s ar r i ve, t hey woul d be - - i f - - when t hey saw pr ot est or s,somet i mes t hey' d be vi si bl y al ar med, and I was j ust i dent i f yi ngmysel f as bei ng part of Pl anned Par ent hood and st at i ng t hat Iwoul d wal k wi t h t hem t o t he door , and t hat ' s i t .

THE COURT: Okay. And t here' s not hi ng sai d i n r egar d t o advocacyof a pr o- choi ce vi ewpoi nt or an ant i - pr ot est or vi ewpoi nt ?

THE WI TNESS: We have been cl ear l y pret t y cl ear l y i nst r uct ed nott o do t hat and t r ai ned not t o do t hat by Pl anned Par ent hood.

Dr af t Tr anscr i pt of Hr g on Mot . t o Di smi ss and Mot . f or Pr el i m. I nj .( Dr af t Tr . ) vol . 3, 17- 19, J an. 30, 2013.7 I d. at 15. 8 At t he hear i ng, t he Ci t y s counsel and Gal vi n had t he f ol l owi ngexchange:

Q . . . [ D] o you r ecal l t he i mpact of st at ement s comi ng f r omacr oss t he st r eet or communi cat i ons f r om acr oss t he st r eet onpat i ent s comi ng i nt o t he Pl anned Par ent hood?

A Yes. Pat i ent s comi ng t o Pl anned Par ent hood of t en wi l l r eactwi t h conf usi on and somet i mes f ear and somet i mes anger t o t hepr esence of t hose pr ot est or s acr oss t he st r eet .

Q I s t her e any doubt i n your mi nd t hat t hei r communi cat i on i sget t i ng t hr ough t o t hese pat i ent s of Pl anned Par ent hood as t heyent er ?

A No doubt what soever . None.



14/74

14

I I I . The Or di nance Educat i onal Meet i ngSi nce t he Or di nance came i nt o ef f ect , Pl ai nt i f f s have

expr essed conf usi on about t he scope of t he act i vi t i es pr ohi bi t ed

i n t he buf f er zone. They pr of ess not t o under st and t he meani ng

of t he t er ms congr egat e or pat r ol ; t hey thi nk t he t er ms

demonst r at i ng and pi cket i ng do not cover some of t hei r

act i vi t i es, i ncl udi ng pr ayer and si ngi ng; and t hey ar e conf used

by t he scope of t he except i on f or per sons usi ng t he publ i c

si dewal k . . . sol el y f or t he pur poses of r eachi ng a dest i nat i on

other t han [ an RHCF] . BCO 21- 113( 2) ( a) ( 4) ( emphasi s added) .

Par t i al l y t o addr ess t hese concer ns, ci t y of f i ci al s hel d an

educat i onal meet i ng at Ci t y Hal l on August 15, 2012, t o expl ai n

how t hey pl anned t o enf orce t he Or di nance. Deput y Pol i ce Chi ef

J enni f er Mor r i son, Assi st ant Ci t y At t or ney Gene Burgman, and

Assi st ant t o t he Mayor Car i na Dr i scol l al l spoke on behal f of

t he Ci t y. Pl s . Ex. 11. Pl ai nt i f f s Agnes Cl i f t , Mol l y J esse,

and Br i dget Mount were among t hose i n at t endance. Dur i ng t he

meet i ng, t he ci t y of f i ci al s acknowl edged t hat admi ni st er i ng t he

Or di nance woul d r equi r e pol i ce t o consi der t he spi r i t , not j ust

t he l et t er of t he l aw. For exampl e, when t he Pl ai nt i f f s asked

whet her pr ayi ng i nsi de t he buf f er zone const i t ut ed a vi ol at i on

of t he Or di nance, t he ci t y of f i ci al s expl ai ned t hat t he pol i ce

I d.



15/74

15

of f i cer at t he scene woul d have t o determi ne whether t he

hypothet i cal pr ayi ng amount ed t o a demonst r at i on and was

t her ef or e subj ect t o t he Or di nance. I d. Dr i scol l , t he Mayor s

assi st ant , expl ai ned t hat t he i nt ent of t he Or di nance was so

t hat peopl e ent er i ng RHCFs di d not have to f ace demonst r ators or

be bothered. I d. When asked t o def i ne t he meani ng of t he key

t er ms of t he Or di nance, ci t y of f i ci al s advi sed t he at t endees

t hat t hey woul d need t o ar r i ve at t hei r own under st andi ng of

t hose ter ms by consul t i ng a di ct i onar y. I d.

Deput y Pol i ce Chi ef Mor r i son al so expl ai ned t hat t he Pol i ce

Depart ment woul d be ent er i ng an educat i onal phase of enf orci ng

t he Or di nance and sought t he Pl ai nt i f f s cooper at i on:

The or di nance has been passed. I t has been conveyed t o us.We ar e expected t o be t he enf orcement arm of t hi sordi nance. So we are goi ng t o do our best t o work wi t hpeopl e, t o educat e them, and t o ask f or compl i ance f r om

t hem. I t i s not t he desi r e of t he Bur l i ngt on Pol i ceDepar t ment t o become adver sar i al . We underst and t hat youhave a ver y st r ong posi t i on about want i ng t o be t here andt o be wher e f ol ks ar e accessi ng t hi s area, but we al sounder st and t hat t he or di nance i s cl ear t hat i t s cr eat i ng abuf f er zone. So, t her e, t her e i s def i ni t el y, a l ot of - -some di scr et i on i n her e as t o what const i t ut es ademonst r at i on, pi cket i ng, et c. I n days ahead, wi l l we needt o f l ush out speci f i cs of t hat ? Maybe. . . .

Pl s. Ex. 11. When asked whet her speci f i c act i vi t i es such as

pr ayi ng wi t hi n t he buf f er zone woul d const i t ut e demonst r at i ng,

Deput y Chi ef Mor r i son gave t he f ol l owi ng response:

I t hi nk I can t gi ve you a bl ack- or - whi t e answer . I t hi nkI m goi ng t o t el l you t hi s : t hat i f I am t he of f i cerdi spat ched t o the scene, and I per cei ve t hat your act of



16/74

16

st andi ng wi t hi n t he buf f er zone and pr ayi ng or doi ngwhatever you ar e doi ng const i t ut es a quot e demonst r at i on, t hen I wi l l - - t hen t hat of f i cer wi l l be expected t oenf or ce t he or di nance. I t hi nk ther e s goi ng t o be a l evelof di scret i on t hat i s i nvol ved her e. And I t hi nk I woul d

ask you t hat , r eal l y candi dl y, i f t her e[ ar e] i ssues l i ket hat t hat need t o be cl ar i f i ed, l et s do i t t hr ough t hewor di ng of t he l anguage, l et s wor k on i t t oget her . Let snot put our backs up and see how f ar we can go unt i l wef or ce a pol i ce of f i cer t o t ake act i on. We r e t al ki ng aboutf ol ks who ar e out t her e doi ng t he best t hey can,exerci si ngyou knowunder an or di nance t hat has some gr eyi n i t . Let s wor k t oget her t o make i t cl ear what i s andi sn t al l owed, but l et s not get i nt o an adver sar i alposi t i on wi t h t he pol i ce of f i cer s on t he st r eet .

I d.

Af t er t he Or di nance Educat i onal Meet i ng, Pl ai nt i f f s

counsel , Nor man Smi t h, sent a l et t er t o Bur l i ngt on Pol i ce Chi ef

Mi chael Schi r l i ng r equest i ng cl ar i f i cat i on as t o whet her t he

f ol l owi ng act i vi t i es wer e l awf ul wi t hi n t he buf f er zone:

of f er i ng l i t er at ur e, one- on- one or al communi cat i ons, pr ayi ng out

l oud, pr ayi ng si l ent l y, pr ayi ng si l ent l y whi l e wear i ng a pr o-

l i f e t - shi r t , r eadi ng t he Bi bl e whi l e wear i ng a pr o- l i f e t -

shi r t , s i ngi ng, and si ngi ng whi l e wear i ng a pr o- l i f e t - shi r t .

Let t er t o Chi ef Schi r l i ng, ECF. No. 8- 26. The l et t er al so

r equest ed cl ar i f i cat i on as t o whet her t he Or di nance pr ohi bi t [ s]

a non- exempt per son f r om bei ng i nsi de t he [ buf f er ] zone f or any

pur pose except t o r each a dest i nat i on ot her t han a r epr oduct i ve

heal t h care f aci l i t y. I d. I n r esponse, Chi ef Schi r l i ng st at ed

t hat he coul d not answer t hose quest i ons and r ef err ed t he

Pl ai nt i f f s t o t he Ci t y At t or ney.



17/74

17

I V. Car e NetThe Pl ai nt i f f s al so al l ege t hat t he Or di nance has been

enf or ced di f f er ent l y at Car e Net , a pr o- l i f e RHCF, t han i t has

been at Pl anned Par ent hood, whi ch i s pr o- choi ce. Compl . 61-

67, 86- 96. For one, t he Ci t y has post ed f i ve si gns9 around

Pl anned Par ent hood demarcat i ng t he buf f er zone but has not done

t he same at Car e Net . Cl i f t Dep. 36, 60, ECF No. 8- 10. I t

i s not cl ear whet her t he Ci t y i nst al l ed t he si gns pur suant t o

Pl anned Par ent hood s r equest and, i f so, whet her Car e Net has

made a si mi l ar r equest .

On t wo occasi ons, pr ot est er s associ at ed wi t h t he pr o- choi ce

gr oup FED- UP Vermont have demonst r ated wi t hi n t he buf f er zone at

Care Net . The f i r st occur r ed on Sept ember 11, 2012. At

appr oxi matel y 5: 30 p. m. , Deb Coul t ur e, t he Execut i ve Di r ect or of

Car e Net , cal l ed t he Bur l i ngt on Pol i ce t o r epor t t he pr ot est .

Fi f t een mi nut es l at er , Li eut enant Scot t Davi dson ar r i ved on t he

scene and ent ered Care Net t o speak wi t h Coul t ur e. Li eut enant

9 The si gns r ead:

REPRODUCTI VEHEALTH

CENTERBUFFER ZONE

NO CONGREGATI NG,PATROLLI NG,

PI CKETI NG, OR DEMONSTRATI NGI N ZONE

BCO 21- 113

Pl s. Ex. 14.



18/74

18

Davi dson asked Coul t ur e what she want ed hi m t o do and t ol d her

t hat t he pr ot est er s had ar gued t hat t he Or di nance di d not appl y

t o Car e Net because i t was not a medi cal cent er . Decl . Deb

Coul t ur e 5, ECF No. 8- 8. Coul t ur e expl ai ned t hat Car e Net

pr ovi des r epr oduct i ve heal t h car e ser vi ces, i ncl udi ng

counsel i ng, ul t r asound, and pr egnancy ver i f i cat i on and st at ed

t hat she want ed t he pr ot est er s t o abi de by the buf f er zone. I d.

Accor di ng t o Coul t ur e, Li eut enant Davi dson t ol d her t hat t he

pr ot est er s woul d be done shor t l y, expr essed t he opi ni on t hat t he

Or di nance was r i di cul ous, and asked her i f she real l y

want [ ed] t o t i e up an of f i cer f or t he next 18 mi nut es. I d. at

6. When Coul t ur e r epeat ed her r equest t hat he enf orce t he

Or di nance, Li eut enant Davi dson r epl i ed, Do you want me to

t i cket t hem? I t wi l l t ake a l ot l onger t han 18 mi nut es t o t i cket

al l of t hem. They ar e goi ng t o be gone i n a l i t t l e whi l e. Do

you r eal l y want me to t i e up an of f i cer when t here ar e more

i mpor t ant t hi ngs goi ng on i n t he ci t y? I d. Li eut enant

Davi dson t hen l ef t t he bui l di ng, but he di d not at t empt t o move

t he pr ot est er s out of t he buf f er zone. Compl . 96. Hal f an

hour l at er , he ret ur ned and t ol d Coul t ur e that t he demonst r at or s

were l eavi ng.

The second i nci dent occur r ed on Oct ober 9, 2012. Ter r i

Sewar d, t he Devel opment Di r ect or of Car e Net , cal l ed t he

Bur l i ngt on Pol i ce Depar t ment at appr oxi mat el y 5: 40 p. m. t o



19/74

19

r epor t t hat ar ound t en pr ot est er s wer e demonst r at i ng 12 t o 15

f eet f r om Car e Net s ent r ance. Af t er descr i bi ng t he basi c

ci r cumst ances of t he pr ot est t o t he di spat cher , Sewar d was

pl aced on hol d f or sever al mi nut es. Def . Ex. M. Sewar d cal l ed

t he Depar t ment agai n, at whi ch poi nt she spoke t o a di f f er ent

di spat cher , who i nf or med her t hat t he reason f or t he del ay was

t hat t he Depar t ment was r espondi ng t o sever al emergenci es at

t hat t i me. Sewar d t ol d t he di spat cher t hat t he pr ot est woul d

probabl y be wr appi ng up around 6 p. m. anyway. The di spat cher

advi sed Sewar d t hat an of f i cer woul d r et ur n her cal l as soon as

one became f r ee. I d. Seward obser ved t wo mar ked pol i ce

vehi cl es pass Car e Net dur i ng t he pr ot est , but nei t her st opped

t o r espond t o her cal l .

Pol i ce Of f i cer Br ownel l r et ur ned Sewar d s cal l ar ound 7: 30

t hat eveni ng. Of f i cer Br ownel l expl ai ned t hat he had dr i ven

past t he pr ot est ear l i er i n t he eveni ng whi l e he was r espondi ng

t o another engagement . He advi sed Seward t o cal l agai n i f

t her e wer e any i ssues i n t he days t o f ol l ow but t hat si nce t he

pr ot est er s wer e no l onger on the scene, i t woul d not be possi bl e

t o t ake act i on [ t hat ni ght ] . Def . Ex. N. At t he end of t he

cal l , Sewar d r equest ed t hat Of f i cer Br ownel l speak wi t h a f el l ow

of f i cer , Andi Hi gbee, who was i n cont act wi t h Car e Net af t er t he

Sept ember 11 i nci dent , and t o f ol l ow up wi t h a boar d member at

Care Net .



20/74

20

DI SCUSSI ON

I . Prot est Buf f er Zones and t he Fi r st AmendmentThi s case present s t he quest i on of whet her t he Ci t y of

Bur l i ngt on may pr ohi bi t i ndi vi dual s f r om knowi ngl y congr egat i ng,

pat r ol l i ng, pi cket i ng, or demonst r at i ng wi t hi n 35 f eet of

r epr oducti ve heal t h car e f aci l i t i es. For t unat el y, i t i s not one

t hat t he Cour t must answer on i t s own. Over t he l ast t went y

year s, t he Supr eme Cour t and sever al ci r cui t cour t s have

addr essed t he const i t ut i onal i t y of pr ovi si ons t hat ar e

subst ant i al l y si mi l ar , t hough cer t ai nl y not i dent i cal , t o t he

Or di nance. A det ai l ed summar y of t hose cases f ol l ows, but t wo

f eat ur es of t he f r amework t hey appl y warr ant emphasi s at t he

out set .

Fi r st , r est r i cti ons on speech ar e subj ect t o di f f er i ng

l evel s of scr ut i ny. Regul at i ons t hat proscr i be or bur den speech

on t he basi s of i t s cont ent or vi ewpoi nt must endur e st r i ct

scr ut i ny, t he most exact i ng st andar d. See, e. g. R. A. V. v. Ci t y

of St . Paul , Mi nn. , 505 U. S. 377, 386 ( 1992) ( The gover nment

may not r egul at e [ speech] based on host i l i t y- or f avor i t i sm-

t owards t he under l yi ng message expr essed. ) . Such cont ent - based

r est r i ct i ons ar e pr esumpt i vel y i nval i d, i d. at 382, and must

be the l east r est r i ct i ve means of pr omot i ng a compel l i ng

government i nt erest . Uni t ed St ates v. Pl ayboy Ent m' t Gr oup,

I nc. , 529 U. S. 803, 813 ( 2000) . Rest r i ct i ons on t he t i me,



21/74

21

pl ace, and manner i n whi ch speech may occurt hat i s,

r est r i ct i ons t hat bur den speech i nci dent al l y and f or r easons

unr el at ed t o i t s cont ent or vi ewpoi nt ar e subj ect t o

i nt er medi at e scr ut i ny. See Tur ner Br oad. Sys. , I nc. v. FCC, 512

U. S. 622, 642 ( 1994) . They must be nar r owl y t ai l or ed t o serve

a si gni f i cant gover nment al i nt er est and must l eave open ampl e

al t er nat i ve channel s f or communi cat i on. War d v. Rock Agai nst

Raci sm, 491 U. S. 781, 791 ( 1989) . The cases di scussed bel ow

make cl ear t hat pr ot est buf f er zones ar e subj ect t o i nt er medi at e

scr ut i ny as l ong as t hey ar e not dr af t ed or enf or ced i n way t hat

di scr i mi nat es on t he basi s of cont ent or vi ewpoi nt .

Second, chal l enges t o t he const i t ut i onal i t y of a r egul at i on

may pr oceed on a f aci al or as- appl i ed basi s. 10 When address i ng

t he f or mer , cour t s pr i nci pal l y l ook t o t he t ext of t he st at ut e

or or di nance t o det er mi ne whet her i t has a pl ai nl y l egi t i mat e

sweep. Wash. St at e Gr ange v. Wash. St at e Republ i can Par t y, 552

U. S. 442, 449 ( 2008) . How t he r egul at i on has been enf orced and

how i t i mpact s t he l i t i gant s i n a par t i cul ar ci r cumst ance ar e

gener al l y consi der at i ons r eser ved f or as- appl i ed, not f aci al

chal l enges.

A. Madsen, Schenck, and Hi l l10 A cat egor i cal di st i nct i on bet ween f aci al and as- appl i ed chal l engesmay be unwar r anted i n theory, see Ri char d H. Fal l on, J r . , Comment ar y,As- appl i ed and Faci al Chal l enges and Thi r d- Par t y St andi ng, 113 Harv.L. Rev. 1321, 1322- 23 ( 2000) ; however, t he post ur e of t hi s caser equi r es t he Cour t t o di st i ngui sh bet ween the t wo.



22/74

22

The Supreme Cour t has deci ded t hree cases i nvol vi ng buf f er

zones at medi cal f aci l i t i es. I n Madsen v. Women s Heal t h

Cent er , I nc. , 512 U. S. 753 (1994) and Schenck v. Pro- Choi ce

Net wor k of West er n New Yor k, 519 U. S. 357 ( 1997) , t he Supr eme

Cour t f i r st conf r ont ed t he i ssue i n t he cont ext of cour t - i ssued

i nj uncti ons pr ohi bi t i ng speci f i c i ndi vi dual s or or gani zat i ons

f r om i nt er f er i ng wi t h publ i c access t o cl i ni cs. I n Madsen, a

Fl or i da st at e cour t i ni t i al l y enj oi ned a gr oup of pr ot est er s

f r om bl ocki ng or i nt er f er i ng wi t h access t o an abor t i on cl i ni c

i n Mel bour ne, Fl or i da. 512 U. S. at 757- 58. Af t er t hat

pr ovi si on pr oved i nsuf f i ci ent , t he st at e cour t expanded i t s

i nj unct i on t o pr ohi bi t t he pr ot est er s

( 2) At al l t i mes on al l days, f r om bl ocki ng, i mpedi ng,i nhi bi t i ng, or i n any ot her manner obst r uct i ng ori nt er f er i ng wi t h access t o, i ngr ess i nt o and egr ess f r omany bui l di ng or par ki ng l ot of t he Cl i ni c.

( 3) At al l t i mes on al l days, f r om congr egat i ng, pi cket i ng,pat r ol l i ng, demonst r at i ng or ent er i ng t hat por t i on of t hepubl i c ri ght - of - way or pr i vat e pr oper t y wi t hi n [ 36] f eet oft he pr oper t y l i ne of t he Cl i ni c . . . . 11

. . . .

( 5) At al l t i mes on al l days, i n an ar ea wi t hi n [ 300] f eetof t he Cl i ni c, f r om physi cal l y appr oachi ng any per sonseeki ng t he ser vi ces of t he Cl i ni c unl ess such per son

i ndi cates a desi r e t o communi cate by appr oachi ng or byi nqui r i ng of t he [ pet i t i oners] . . . .

11 The i nj unct i on cont ai ned sever al except i ons t o the 36- f oot buf f er ,i ncl udi ng an adj ust ment t o i t s si ze on one si de of t he cl i ni c andexempt i ons f or near by pr opert y owner s and t hei r i nvi t ees. Madsen, 512U. S. at 759- 60.



23/74

23

I d. at 759- 60.

Revi ewi ng t he revi sed i nj unct i on, t he Supr eme Cour t

det er mi ned t hat i t was not cont ent or vi ewpoi nt - based si mpl y

because i t appl i ed onl y t o ant i - abor t i on pr ot est er s; af t er al l ,

t hey were t he ones whose conduct gave r i se t o under l yi ng l awsui t

and j ust i f i ed t he i nj unct i on. I d. at 762- 63. The Cour t al so

r ecogni zed t hat t he i nj unct i on ser ved a var i et y of l egi t i mat e

gover nment i nt er est s, i ncl udi ng pr eservi ng a woman s f r eedom t o

seek l awf ul medi cal and counsel i ng servi ces, mai nt ai ni ng publ i c

saf et y and or der , pr omot i ng t he f r ee f l ow of t r af f i c on publ i c

st r eet s and si dewal ks, and pr ot ect i ng pat i ent s pr i vacy

concer ns. I d. at 767- 68.

Whether each pr ovi si on of t he i nj unct i on was nar r owl y

t ai l or ed t o ser ve t hose i nt er est s pr esent ed a mor e di f f i cul t

quest i on. Expl ai ni ng t hat cour t - i ssued i nj unct i ons gener al l y

pose a gr eat er r i sk of censor shi p and di scr i mi nat or y

appl i cat i on, t he Cour t appl i ed a mor e exact i ng st andar d t han i t

woul d have f or an i dent i cal l y- phr ased l egi sl at i ve enact ment .

I d. at 764. I nst ead of consi der i ng whet her t he i nj unct i on

promot e[ d] a subst ant i al gover nment i nt er est t hat woul d be

achi eved l ess ef f ect i vel y absent t he r egul at i on, War d, 491 U. S.

at 799 ( emphasi s added) , t he Cour t demanded t hat each pr ovi si on

be no mor e burdensome t o t he def endant t han necessar y t o

pr ovi de compl et e r el i ef t o t he pl ai nt i f f s. Madsen, 512 U. S.



24/74

24

at 765 ( quot i ng Cal i f ano v. Yamasaki , 442 U. S. 682, 702 ( 1979) )

( emphasi s added) . Usi ng t hi s hei ght ened st andar d, t he Cour t

uphel d t he 36- f oot f i xed buf f er zone ( wi t h r espect t o publ i c but

not pr i vat e pr oper t y) because i t was necessary t o pr ot ect access

t o t he cl i ni c; however , t he Cour t st r uck down t he pr ohi bi t i on on

appr oachi ng pat i ent s or pot ent i al pat i ent s wi t hi n 300 f eet of

t he cl i ni c because i t bur dened more speech t han necessary. I d.

at 768- 76. 12

Thr ee years l at er , i n Schenck, t he Supr eme Cour t r evi si t ed

t he i ssue when i t consi der ed t he const i t ut i onal i t y of a

pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on pr ohi bi t i ng abor t i on pr ot est er s f r om

demonst r at i ng wi t hi n f i f t een f eet f r om ei t her si de or edge of ,

or i n f r ont of , door ways or door way ent r ances, par ki ng l ot

ent r ances, dr i veways and dr i veway ent r ances of such f aci l i t i es

( f i xed buf f er zones) , or wi t hi n f i f t een f eet of any per son or

vehi cl e seeki ng access t o or l eavi ng such f aci l i t i es ( f l oat i ng

buf f er zones) . 519 U. S. at 367. Once agai n, t he Cour t

det er mi ned t hat t he gover nment al i nt er est s i n ensur i ng publ i c

saf et y and or der , pr omot i ng t he f r ee f l ow of t r af f i c on st r eet s

and si dewal ks, pr ot ect i ng pr oper t y r i ght s, and pr ot ect i ng a

woman s f r eedom t o seek pr egnancy- r el at ed ser vi ces wer e

si gni f i cant enough t o j ust i f y an appr opr i at el y t ai l or ed

12 The Cour t al so r ej ect ed vagueness and over br eadt h chal l enges t o t hei nj uncti on f or r easons not di r ectl y r el evant t o t he Pl ai nt i f f s cl ai msher e. Madsen, 512 U. S. at 775- 76.



25/74

25

i nj unct i on, i d. at 376; however , t he Cour t concl uded t hat onl y

t he f i xed buf f er zone was i n f act necessary to serve t hose

i nt er ests. I d. at 376- 82. I n doi ng so, t he Cour t acknowl edged

t hat t he f i xed buf f er zone was a pr ophyl act i c measur e,

especi al l y because an unchal l enged por t i on of t he i nj unct i on

pr ohi bi t ed bl ocki ng, i mpedi ng or obst r uct i ng access t o t he

cl i ni c, but t he Cour t def er r ed t o t he Di st r i ct Cour t s

assessment t hat t he f i xed buf f er zone was necessary t o keep t he

cl i ni c ent r ances cl ear . See i d. The Cour t i n Schenck al so

swi f t l y r ej ect ed t he suggest i on t hat t he t er m demonst r at i ng

was unconst i t ut i onal l y vague, f i ndi ng t hat when t he i nj unct i on

was r ead as a whol e, peopl e of or di nar y i nt el l i gence ( and

cer t ai nl y def endant s whose demonst r at i ons l ed t o t hi s l i t i gat i on

i n t he f i r st pl ace) have been gi ven a r easonabl e oppor t uni t y t o

know what i s pr ohi bi t ed. I d. at 383 ( quot i ng Gr ayned v. Ci t y

of Rockf or d, 408 U. S. 104, 110 ( 1972) ) .

I n Hi l l v. Col or ado, t he Supr eme Cour t addr essed t he

const i t ut i onal i t y of a l egi sl at i vel y- enacted buf f er zone f or t he

f i r st t i me. 530 U. S. 703, 730 ( 2000) . I n 1993, t he Col or ado

General Assembl y enact ed a st atut e maki ng i t a mi sdemeanor t o

knowi ngl y appr oach anot her per son wi t hi n ei ght f eet of suchper son, unl ess such ot her per son consent s, f or t he pur poseof passi ng a l eaf l et or handbi l l t o, di spl ayi ng a si gn t o,or engagi ng i n or al pr ot est , educat i on, or counsel i ng wi t hsuch ot her per son i n t he publ i c way or si dewal k ar ea wi t hi na r adi us of one hundr ed f eet f r om any ent r ance door t o aheal t h car e f aci l i t y.



26/74

26

Col o. Rev. St at . 18- 9- 122( 3) . The Gener al Assembl y def i ned

t he t er m heal t h car e f aci l i t y br oadl y t o i ncl ude any ent i t y

t hat i s l i censed, cer t i f i ed, or ot her wi se aut hor i zed or

per mi t t ed by l aw t o admi ni st er medi cal t r eat ment i n [ Col or ado] .

I d. at 18- 9- 122( 4) . And t he General Assembl y enacted a

r el at ed pr ovi si on maki ng i t a separ at e mi sdemeanor t o knowi ngl y

obst r uct [ ] , det ai n[ ] , hi nder [ ] , i mpede[ ] , or bl ock[ ] anot her

per son s ent r y t o or exi t f r om a heal t h car e f aci l i t y. I d. at

18- 9- 122( 2) .

Despi t e havi ng st r uck down si mi l ar pr ovi si ons i n Madsen and

Schenck, t he Cour t uphel d t he 8- f oot f l oat i ng buf f er zone i n

Hi l l . Though t he pet i t i oner s di d not chal l enge t he

subst ant i al i t y of t he St at e s i nt er est i n enact i ng t he st at ut e,

t he Cour t r eaf f i r med t he pr oposi t i on t hat t he st at e s gener al

pol i ce power s j ust i f [ i ed] a speci al f ocus on uni mpeded access

t o heal t h car e f aci l i t i es and t he avoi dance of pot ent i al t r auma

t o pat i ent s associ at ed wi t h conf r ont at i onal pr ot est s. Hi l l ,

530 U. S. at 715. The Cour t al so cl ar i f i ed t hat t he St at e coul d

t ake i nt o account t he i nt er est s of unwi l l i ng l i st ener s i n

si t uat i ons wher e t he degr ee of capt i vi t y makes i t i mpr act i cal

f or t he unwi l l i ng vi ewer or audi t or t o avoi d exposur e. I d. at

718 ( quot i ng Er znozni k v. Ci t y of J acksonvi l l e, 422 U. S. 205,

209 (1974) ) .



27/74

27

Appl yi ng i nt er medi at e scrut i ny, t he Cour t f ound t hat t he

st at ut e was al so nar r owl y t ai l or ed and l ef t open ampl e

al t er nat i ve channel s f or communi cat i on. Hi l l , 530 U. S. at 725-

30. Whi l e t he Cour t not ed t hat t he 8- f oot separ at i on woul d have

l i t t l e i mpact on demonst r at or s abi l i t y to convey thei r message

wi t h si gns, t he Cour t conceded t hat t he separ at i on mi ght make i t

mor e di f f i cul t f or a speaker t o be hear d. Hi l l , 530 U. S. at

726. But because t he st at ut e pl aced no r est r i ct i on on t he use

of ampl i f i cat i on equi pment , al l owed a speaker t o conver se at a

nor mal conver sat i onal di st ance, and per mi t t ed pr ot est er s t o

r emai n st at i onar y whi l e i ndi vi dual s passed wi t hi n 8 f eet of

t hem, t her e wer e suf f i ci ent al t er nat i ve avenues of communi cat i on

avai l abl e t o t he pr ot est er s. I d. at 727- 28.

Though t he Cour t was al so t r oubl ed by t he bur den pl aced on

pr ot ester s abi l i t y t o di str i but e handbi l l s , i t not ed t hat t he

st at ut e di d not pr event a l eaf l et t er f r om st andi ng near t he

pat h of oncomi ng pedest r i ans and pr of f er i ng hi s or her mat er i al ,

whi ch t he pedest r i ans can easi l y accept . I d. at 727. The

Cour t s di scussi on r eveal ed t hat i t woul d not i nsi st on t he

l east r est r i ct i ve or l east i nt r usi ve means of f ul f i l l i ng t he

St at e s st at ut or y goal s, even when cor e f or ms of expr essi on wer e

bur dened. Echoi ng Schenck, t he Cour t expl ai ned t hat whi l e t he

st atut e mi ght somet i mes i nhi bi t a demonst r ator whose appr oach

i n f act woul d have pr oved har ml ess, t hi s aspect i s j ust i f i ed



28/74


29/74

29

i nt el l i gence woul d not under st and what conduct t he st at ut e

pr ohi bi t s. I d. at 732. Though t he pet i t i oner s conj ur ed up

numer ous hypot het i cal si t uat i ons t o t est whet her cer t ai n conduct

woul d be pr oscr i bed by t he st at ut e, t he Cour t , l ooki ng t o t he

st at ut e as a whol e, t hought t hat t he st at ut e was cl ear about

what i t pr ohi bi t ed and t hat i t s appl i cat i on was val i d i n t he

vast maj or i t y of i t s i nt ended appl i cat i ons. I d. at 733

( quot i ng St at e v. Rai nes, 362 U. S. 12, 23 ( 1960) ) .

B. Buf f er Zones i n t he Ci r cui t Cour t sThe Second Ci r cui t has consi der ed t he val i di t y of buf f er

zones i n t wo cases, bot h of whi ch i nvol ved i nj unct i ons

r est r ai ni ng ant i - abor t i on pr ot est er s. I n Uni t ed St at es v.

Scot t , t he def endant was convi ct ed of vi ol at i ng t he Freedom of

Access t o Cl i ni c Ent r ances Act ( FACE) by usi ng physi cal

obst r ucti on t o i nt ent i onal l y i nj ur e, i nt i mi dat e or i nt er f er e

wi t h, or at t empt t o i nj ur e, i nt i mi dat e or i nt er f er e wi t h, [ a

cl i ni c s] pat i ent s, escor t s, and st af f because t hey wer e

obt ai ni ng or pr ovi di ng r epr oduct i ve heal t h servi ces and on at

l east t wo occasi ons by usi ng t he t hr eat of f or ce. 187 F. 3d

282, 284- 85 ( 2d Ci r . 1999) ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Scot t , 958

F. Supp. 761, 775- 76 ( D. Conn. 1997) ) . Af t er r epeat ed

vi ol at i ons of a nar r ower i nj unct i on, t he Di st r i ct Cour t

pr ecl uded Scot t f r om ent er i ng wi t hi n 28 f eet of t he cl i ni c s

ent r ance or wi t hi n 8 f eet of per sons and t hei r vehi cl e af t er



30/74

30

t hey have ver bal l y i ndi cat ed no i nt er est i n l i t er at ur e or

counsel i ng. On appeal , t he Second Ci r cui t uphel d bot h t he f i xed

and t he f l oat i ng buf f er zones, but t he pr i nci pal f ocus of t he

deci si on was the f l oat i ng buf f er zone. The Cour t di st i ngui shed

Schenck on t he gr ounds t hat Scot t s buf f er zone was smal l er and

per mi t t ed Scot t t o appr oach i ndi vi dual s unt i l t hey expr essed

di si nt er est i n hi s message. Scot t , 187 F. 3d at 288.

I n New Yor k ex rel . Spi t zer v. Oper at i on Rescue Nat i onal ,

t he Second Ci r cui t r evi ewed a pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on t hat , among

ot her t hi ngs, expanded pr evi ousl y- i mposed f i xed buf f er zones at

t wo f aci l i t i es f r om 15 t o 60 f eet . 13 273 F. 3d 184, 192 (2d Ci r .

2001) . Al t hough t he Second Ci r cui t det er mi ned t hat t he

i nj unct i on was cont ent - neut r al and ser ved si gni f i cant

gover nment al i nt er est s, i t st r uck down t he enl ar ged, 60- f oot

buf f er zones because t hey were more ext ensi ve t han necessary

t o pr eser ve access t o t he cl i ni cs. I d. at 203. The Cour t

never t hel ess l ef t t he or i gi nal 15- f oot buf f er zone i nt act . I d.

at 209.

Cases f r om sever al ot her ci r cui t s al so mer i t consi der at i on

because of t hei r f act ual si mi l ar i t i es t o t he one at hand. The

Fi r st Ci r cui t has r ej ected a ser i es of chal l enges t o a

13 The i nj unct i on pr ohi bi t ed t he def endant s f r om demonst r at i ng,congr egat i ng, st andi ng, si t t i ng, or l yi ng on, or post i ng or car r yi ngsi gns, or bei ng pr esent wi t hi n f i f t een f eet of ei t her edge of anydoorway, wal kway, or dr i veway ent r ance t o any cover ed f aci l i t y.Operat i on Rescue Nat l , 273 F. 3d at 192. The Second Ci r cui t di d notdi scuss whet her t hese t erms were vague.



31/74

31

Massachuset t s st at ut e est abl i shi ng buf f er zones around

r epr oducti ve heal t h car e f aci l i t i es. See McGui r e v. Rei l l y

( McGui r e I ) , 260 F. 3d 36 ( 1st Ci r . 2001) ; McGui r e v. Rei l l y

( McGui r e I I ) , 386 F. 3d 45 ( 1st Ci r . 2004) ; McCul l en v. Coakl ey

( McCul l en I ) , 571 F. 3d 167 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) ; McCul l en v.

Coakl ey ( McCul l en I I ) , No. 12- 1334, 2013 WL 85928 ( 1st Ci r . ,

J an. 9, 2013) . The st at ute was most r ecent l y amended i n 2007 to

cr eat e f i xed buf f er zones compr i si ng

a r adi us of 35 f eet of any por t i on of an ent r ance, exi t ordr i veway of a r epr oduct i ve heal t h car e f aci l i t y or wi t hi nt he ar ea wi t hi n a r ect angl e cr eat ed by extendi ng t heout si de boundar i es of any ent r ance, exi t or dr i veway of ar epr oducti ve heal t h car e f aci l i t y i n st r ai ght l i nes t o t hepoi nt wher e such l i nes i nt er sect t he si del i nes of t hest r eet i n f r ont of such ent r ance, exi t or dr i veway.

McCul l en I , 571 F. 3d at 173.

Much l i ke t he Bur l i ngt on Or di nance, t he Massachuset t s

st atut e pr ovi des t hat no person may knowi ngl y ent er or r emai n

on a publ i c way or si dewal k adj acent t o a r epr oduct i ve heal t h

care f aci l i t y, i d. at 173, and i t exempt s f our cl asses of

persons:

( 1) per sons ent er i ng or l eavi ng such f aci l i t y;( 2) empl oyees or agent s of such f aci l i t y act i ng wi t hi n t he

scope of t hei r empl oyment ;

( 3) l aw enf or cement , ambul ance, f i r ef i ght i ng,const r uct i on, ut i l i t i es, publ i c wor ks and ot hermuni ci pal agent s act i ng wi t hi n t he scope of t hei rempl oyment ; and



32/74

32

( 4) per sons usi ng t he publ i c si dewal k or st r eet r i ght - of -way adj acent t o such f aci l i t y sol el y f or t he pur poseof r eachi ng a dest i nat i on ot her t han such f aci l i t y.

I d. at 173- 74. 14 I n McCul l en I & I I , t he Fi rs t Ci rcui t rej ect ed

f aci al and as appl i ed chal l enges t o t he st at ut e. See McCul l en

I , 571 F. 3d at 184; McCul l en I I , 2013 WL 85928 at *10- 13.

I n Br own v. Ci t y of Pi t t sbur gh, 586 F. 3d 263 ( 3d Ci r .

2009) , t he Thi r d Ci r cui t addr essed t he const i t ut i onal i t y of a

Pi t t sbur gh or di nance est abl i shi ng a f l oat i ng buf f er zone

vi r t ual l y i ndi st i ngui shabl e f r om t he Col or ado st at ut e i n Hi l l ,

as wel l as a f i xed buf f er zone of 15 f eet wi t hi n whi ch [ n] o

per son or per sons shal l knowi ngl y congr egat e, pat r ol , pi cket , or

demonst r ate. Brown, 586 F. 3d at 267, 273. Al t hough t he Thi r d

Ci r cui t det er mi ned t hat each of t he pr ovi si ons was f aci al l y

val i d on i t s own and served i mpor t ant gover nment i nt er est s, i t

concl uded t hat t he l ayer i ng of t wo t ypes of pr ophyl act i c

measures [ was] subst ant i al l y br oader t han necessary t o achi eve

t hose i nt er est s. I d. at 279 ( i nt er nal quot at i on omi t t ed) . The

Thi r d Ci r cui t t her ef or e i nst r uct ed t he Ci t y of Pi t t sbur gh t o

14 The St at e At t orney General i ssued a gui dance expl ai ni ng how t heseexempt i ons woul d be appl i ed. See McCul l en I , 571 F. 3d at 184. I n

McGui r e I and McCul l en I , t he Cour t r ej ect ed t he not i on t hat t heexempt i ons rendered t he st at ut e cont ent - based. Because t he Cour tcoul d envi si on at l east one l egi t i mat e, cont ent - neut r al r eason f ori ncl udi ng t he empl oyee except i on i n t he act namel y, t he possi bi l i t yt hat a cl i ni c agent s and empl oyees may assi st i n ensur i ng pat i ent ssaf e passage and access t o RHCFst he Fi r st Ci r cui t r ej ect ed t hedemonst r ators ar gument t hat t he l aw i mpermi ssi bl y di scr i mi nated ont he basi s of cont ent or vi ewpoi nt . See McCul l en I , 571 F. 3d at 177;McGui r e I , 260 F. 3d at 45- 47.



33/74

33

choose t he pr ovi si on i t want ed t o enf or ce and di r ect ed t he

di st r i ct cour t t o enj oi n enf or cement of t he ot her .

Fi nal l y, i n Hoye v. Ci t y of Oakl and, 653 F. 3d 835, 859 ( 9t h

Ci r . 2011) , t he Ni nt h Ci r cui t uphel d t he f aci al

const i t ut i onal i t y of an Oakl and Or di nance est abl i shi ng a

f l oat i ng buf f er zone t hat was al so si mi l ar t o t he Col or ado

stat ut e i n Hi l l ; however , t he as- appl i ed chal l enge was a

di f f er ent mat t er . Af t er t he Ci t y admi t t ed t hat i t had a pol i cy

of di st i ngui shi ng bet ween speech t hat f aci l i t at es access t o

cl i ni cs and speech t hat di scour ages access t o cl i ni cs, i d. at

851, t he Ni nt h Ci r cui t appl i ed st r i ct scrut i ny and i nval i dat ed

t he enf or cement pol i cy. I d. at 853- 54.

I I . Recent Fi r st Amendment J ur i spr udenceThe Pl ai nt i f f s ar gue t hat f i ve maj or Fi r st Amendment cases

deci ded i n t he l ast f ew year s under mi ne the f or ce of t he buf f er

zone cases precedi ng t hem. See Br own v. Entm t Merchant s Ass n,

131 S. Ct . 2729 ( 2011) ( i nval i dat i ng a st at ut e i mposi ng

r est r i ct i ons and l abel i ng r equi r ement s on t he sal e of vi ol ent

vi deo games) ; Sor r el l v. I MS Heal t h, I nc. , 131 S. Ct . 2653

( 2011) ( hol di ng t hat a st at ut e r est r i ct i ng t he sal e, di scl osur e

and use of pharmacy recor ds t o marketers was i mpermi ss i bl y

cont ent - based) ; Snyder v. Phel ps, 131 S. Ct . 1207 ( 2011)

( hol di ng t hat t he Fi r st Amendment shi el ded pr ot est er s f r om t or t

l i abi l i t y f or pi cket i ng at a sol di er s f uneral ) ; Uni t ed St at es



34/74

34

v. St evens, 130 S. Ct . 1577 ( 2010) ( st r i ki ng down a f eder al

st at ut e pr ohi bi t i ng t he creat i on, sal e, or possessi on of

por t r ayal s of ani mal cruel t y) ; Ci t i zens Uni t ed v. Feder al

El ect i on Com n, 558 U. S. 310 ( 2010) ( st r i ki ng down a f eder al

campai gn st at ut e banni ng cor por at i ons f r om engagi ng i n pol i t i cal

speech) .

These cases do not car r y t he wei ght Pl ai nt i f f s ass i gn t hem.

Fi r st , t hey al l i nvol ve r est r i ct i ons on speech t hat wer e

expr essl y cont ent or vi ewpoi nt - based. I n Sor r el l , f or exampl e,

t he Cour t f ound t hat t he expr ess pur pose and pr act i cal ef f ect

of Ver mont s s t at ut e banni ng the sal e or di ssemi nat i on of

pr escr i ber - i dent i f yi ng i nf or mat i on was t o di mi ni sh t he

ef f ect i veness of market i ng by manuf actur ers of br and- name

dr ugs. 131 S. Ct . at 2663. I n Brown and St evens, t he cont ent -

based natur e of t he st atut es was even more obvi ous, as t he

r egul at i ons i n t hose cases pl aced r est r i ct i ons on depi ct i ons of

ani mal cr uel t y and vi ol ent vi deo games. Brown, 131 S. Ct . at

2733 ( st r i ki ng down a Cal i f or ni a st at ut e pr ohi bi t i ng t he sal e or

r ent al of vi ol ent vi deo games t o mi nor s) ; St evens, 130 S. Ct .

at 1582 ( st r i ki ng down a f eder al st at ut e est abl i shi ng a cr i mi nal

penal t y f or anyone who knowi ngl y cr eat es, sel l s, or possesses

a depi ct i on of ani mal cruel t y, i f done f or commer ci al gai n

i n i nt er st at e or f or ei gn commer ce) ( quot i ng 18 U. S. C. 48( a) ) .



35/74

35

Ci t i zens Uni t ed i s per haps sl i ght l y mor e r el evant t o

Pl ai nt i f f s posi t i on, but t hey r el y on i t f or t he br oad

pr oposi t i on t hat t he gover nment cannot i ssue rest r i ct i ons

di st i ngui shi ng among di f f er ent speaker s, al l owi ng speech by some

but not by ot her s. 130 S. Ct . at 898. I n doi ng so, Pl ai nt i f f s

over l ook t he obvi ous di f f er ences bet ween a r egul at i on that

pr ohi bi t s a par t i cul ar cl ass of speaker s ( cor por at i ons) f r om

engagi ng i n speech wi t h a par t i cul ar cont ent ( el ect i oneer i ng

communi cat i on) and one t hat r est r i ct s t he l ocat i ons wher e

pat r ol l i ng, pi cket i ng, demonst r at i ng, or congr egat i ng may occur .

Accor d McCul l en v. Coakl ey, 759 F. Supp. 2d 133, 137 ( D. Mass.

2010) ( r ej ect i ng t he not i on t hat t i me- pl ace- manner r est r i ct i ons

ar e anal yzed di f f er ent l y af t er Ci t i zens Uni t ed) . The not i on

t hat Ci t i zens Uni t ed si gni f i ed a sea- change i n t he t r eat ment of

t i me- pl ace- manner r est r i ct i ons i s al so f i r ml y di spel l ed by

Snyder . Al t hough t he Cour t det er mi ned t hat pr ot est er s at a

sol di er s f uner al coul d not be subj ect t o t or t damages f or t hei r

Fi r st Amendment act i vi t y, t he Cour t r eaf f i r med t he pr i nci pl e

t hat [ pr ot est er s ] choi ce of wher e and when t o conduct [ t hei r ]

pi cket i ng i s not beyond t he Gover nment s r egul at ory reachi t i s

subj ect t o r easonabl e t i me, pl ace, or manner r est r i ct i ons t hat

ar e consi st ent wi t h t he st andar ds announced i n t hi s Cour t s

pr ecedent s. 131 S. Ct . at 1218 ( quot i ng Cl ark v. Communi t y f or

Cr eat i ve NonVi ol ence, 468 U. S. 288, 293 ( 1984) ) . The Cour t



36/74

36

not ed t hat t her e wer e sever al si t uat i ons wher e t he l ocat i on of

t ar get ed pi cket i ng can be r egul at ed under pr ovi si ons t hat t he

Cour t has det er mi ned t o be cont ent - neut r al and ci t ed t he f i xed

buf f er zone uphel d i n Madsen wi t h appr oval . Snyder , 131 S. Ct .

at 1218.

* * *

Havi ng l ai d out t he pr ecedent s gui di ng t hi s opi ni on, t he

Cour t f i r st addr esses t he Ci t y s mot i on t o di smi ss t he

Pl ai nt i f f s f aci al chal l enges and t hen t ur ns to t he Pl ai nt i f f s

mot i on f or a pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on.

I I I . The Mot i on t o Di smi ss t he Faci al Chal l enges t o t heOr di nance

The Ci t y moves t o di smi ss Pl ai nt i f f s f aci al chal l enges on

t he gr ounds t hat t hey f ai l t o st at e a cl ai m on whi ch r el i ef may

be grant ed. See Fed. R. Ci v. P. 12( b) ( 6) . [ O] nl y a compl ai nt

t hat st at es a pl ausi bl e cl ai m f or r el i ef sur vi ves a mot i on t o

di smi ss, Ashcrof t v. I qbal , 556 U. S. 662, 679 ( 2009) ( ci t i ng

Bel l At l . Cor p. v. Twombl y, 550 U. S. 544, 556 ( 2007) ) , and a

f aci al chal l enge t hat i s def i ci ent as a mat t er of l aw may be

di smi ssed. See Ki t t ay v. Gi ul i ani , 252 F. 3d 645, 646- 47 ( 2d

Ci r . 2001) ( ci t i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Sal er no, 481 U. S. 739, 745

( 1987) ) ; see al so Cook v. Gat es, 528 F. 3d 42, 65 ( 1st Ci r . 2008)

( af f i r mi ng a di st r i ct cour t s di smi ssal of f aci al chal l enges t o

t he Don t Ask, Don t Tel l st at ut e) . A par t y advanci ng a



37/74

37

f aci al chal l enge car r i es a heavy bur den, f or i t must f ai l wher e

t he st at ut e has a pl ai nl y l egi t i mat e sweep. Wash. St at e

Gr ange, 552 U. S. at 449 ( quot i ng Washi ngt on v. Gl ucksber g, 521

U. S. 702, 739- 40 & n. 7 ( 1997) ( St evens, J . , concur r i ng) ) . I n

consi der i ng a f aci al chal l enge, t he Cour t l ooks onl y [ t o] t he

t ext of t he stat ut e i t sel f , not i t s appl i cat i on t o t he

par t i cul ar ci r cumst ances of an i ndi vi dual . Fi el d Day, LLC v.

Count y of Suf f ol k, 463 F. 3d 167, 174 ( 2d Ci r . 2006) ( ci t i ng Ci t y

of Lakewood v. Pl ai n Deal er Pub. Co. , 486 U. S. 750, 770 n. 11

( 1988) ) ; see al so Wash. Stat e Gr ange, 521 U. S. at 449- 50 ( I n

det er mi ni ng whet her a l aw i s f aci al l y i nval i d, we must be

car ef ul not t o go beyond t he st at ut e' s f aci al r equi r ement s and

specul at e about hypot het i cal or i magi nar y cases. ) .

A. Ti me, Pl ace, and Manner Rest r i ct i onFol l owi ng t he exampl e of pr evi ous buf f er - zone cases, t he

Cour t appl i es i nt er medi at e scr ut i ny. See, e. g. Hi l l , 530 U. S.

at 719, 725; McCul l en I , 571 F. 3d at 175. Cont ent neut r al

t i me, pl ace and manner r egul at i ons must be nar r owl y t ai l or ed t o

serve a si gni f i cant gover nment i nt er est , and must l eave open

ampl e al t er nat i ve channel s of communi cat i on. Zal aski v. Ci t y

of Br i dgepor t Pol i ce Dep t , 613 F. 3d 336, 341 ( 2d Ci r . 2010)

( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . On i t s f ace, t he Or di nance

meet s each of t hese r equi r ement s.



38/74

38

1. Cont ent ( and Vi ewpoi nt 15) Neut ral i t yAs a gener al r ul e, l aws t hat by thei r t er ms di st i ngui sh

f avor ed speech f r om di sf avor ed speech on t he basi s of t he i deas

or vi ew expr essed ar e cont ent - based. Turner Br oad. Sys. , 512

U. S. at 643. The Supr eme Cour t has f ur t her expl ai ned t hat t he

pr i nci pal i nqui r y i n det er mi ni ng t he cont ent neut r al i t y, i n

speech cases gener al l y, and i n t i me, pl ace, or manner cases i n

par t i cul ar , i s whet her t he gover nment has adopt ed a r egul at i on

of speech because of di sagreement wi t h t he message i t conveys.

War d, 491 U. S. at 791; see al so Hi l l , 530 U. S. at 719 ( appl yi ng

War d) . Gover nment r egul at i on of expr essi ve act i vi t y i s cont ent

neut r al so l ong as i t i s j ust i f i ed wi t hout r ef er ence t o t he

cont ent of t he r egul at ed speech. War d, 491 U. S. at 791

( quot i ng Cl ar k, 468 U. S. at 293) . A r egul at i on i s not cont ent -

based si mpl y because i t di spr opor t i onat el y bur dens cer t ai n

speaker s or has an i nci dent al ef f ect on some and not ot her s.

McGui r e I , 260 F. 3d at 44 ( ci t i ng Hi l l , 530 U. S. at 719; War d,

491 U. S. at 791) .

On i t s f ace, t he Or di nance i s cont ent - neut r al . The

Counci l s f i ndi ngs cont ai ned i n t he Or di nance st at e t hat i t s

goal s are t o ensur e publ i c saf et y and or der whi l e bal anci ng

Fi r st Amendment f r eedoms wi t h t he r i ght of i ndi vi dual s t o seek

15 Because of t he subst ant i al over l ap bet ween the Pl ai nt i f f s ar gumentt hat t he Or di nance r est r i ct s speech on t he basi s of cont ent andvi ewpoi nt , t he Cour t addr esses bot h cl ai ms i n t hi s sect i on.



39/74

39

r epr oduct i ve heal t h car e servi ces. BCO 21- 111. The

Pl ai nt i f f s ar gue t hat t he Cour t need not consi der t hose

obj ect i ves because t hey ar e mer el y pr et ext , but t hi s ar gument

f ai l s f or sever al r easons. On a f aci al chal l enge, t he Cour t

l ooks onl y t o t he t ext of t he st at ut e i t sel f , not t o t he

par t i cul ar ci r cumst ances of an i ndi vi dual . Fi el d Day, 463 F. 3d

at 174. By def i ni t i on, an ar gument gr ounded i n pr et ext r equi r es

t he Cour t t o l ook beyond t he t ext and i s t her ef or e i nappr opr i at e

i n t he cont ext of a f aci al chal l enge; t he Cour t must t ake t he

Counci l s f i ndi ngs at f ace val ue. 16 Cf . Uni t ed St at es v.

O' Br i en, 391 U. S. 367, 383 ( 1968) ( I t i s a f ami l i ar pr i nci pl e

of const i t ut i onal l aw t hat t hi s Cour t wi l l not st r i ke down an

ot her wi se const i t ut i onal st at ut e on t he basi s of an al l eged

i l l i ci t l egi sl at i ve mot i ve. ) .

To t he ext ent t hat Pl ai nt i f f s ar e ar gui ng t hat t he

obj ect i ves ment i oned i n sect i on 21- 111 ar e f ul l y addr essed by

t he unchal l enged pr ovi si on pr ohi bi t i ng anyone f r om obst r uct i ng

access t o RHCFs, sect i on 21- 113( 1) , t he Cour t has sever al

r esponses: Fi r st , t hi s ar gument essent i al l y r ecast s an

obj ect i on t o t he necessi t y of t he buf f er zonei . e. a r eason why

t he buf f er zone mi ght not be nar r owl y t ai l or edas a reason f or

16 For t hi s r eason, Pl ai nt i f f s al l egat i ons t hat Pl anned Par ent hood andother pro- choi ce advocates wer e undoubt edl y r esponsi bl e f or t hepassage of t he Or di nance has no bear i ng on t he quest i on of whet her t heOr di nance i s a f aci al l y val i d t i me- pl ace- manner r est r i ct i on.



40/74

40

doubt i ng i t s cont ent neut r al i t y. I n t hi s r espect , Pl ai nt i f f s

conf l ate t wo component s of t he t i me- pl ace- manner st andard.

Second, Pl ai nt i f f s i gnor e t he f act t hat t he Supr eme Cour t has

condoned the use of buf f er zones and ot her prophyl act i c

measures i n cases wher e t her e wer e al so di r ect pr ohi bi t i ons on

obst r uct i ng access t o medi cal f aci l i t i es. 17 See Hi l l , 530 U. S.

at 707 n. 1; Madsen, 512 U. S. at 759- 60. Accor di ngl y, t he Cour t

f i nds t he Ci t y s choi ce t o suppl ement a di r ect pr ohi bi t i on wi t h

a buf f er zone l ar gel y i r r el evant t o t he quest i on of whet her t he

Or di nance i s cont ent - neut r al .

Of f ar gr eat er si gni f i cance i s t he f act t hat t he act ual

l anguage of t he Or di nance i s neut r al wi t h r espect t o t he cont ent

and vi ewpoi nt of t he speech i t r egul at es. The t erms

congr egat e, pat r ol , pi cket , and demonst r at e i dent i f y t he

ways i n whi ch an i ndi vi dual i s expr essi ng her sel f , but t hey do

not f avor one subj ect mat t er or vi ewpoi nt over anot her . That

t he Or di nance may at t i mes r equi r e l aw enf orcement t o exami ne an

i ndi vi dual s speech t o det er mi ne whet her she i s congr egat i ng,

pat r ol l i ng, pi cket i ng, or demonst r at i ng does not make i t a

17 Under t he Pl ai nt i f f s l ogi c, al l st at e and l ocal measur es pr ot ecti ngRHCFs mi ght be consi dered dupl i cat i ve ( and t heref ore i mpermi ssi bl e)due t o t he f act t hat t her e i s a f eder al st at ut e creat i ng ci vi l andcr i mi nal penal t i es f or any per son who by f or ce or t hr eat of f or ce orby physi cal obst r ucti on, i nt ent i onal l y i nj ur es, i nt i mi dat es ori nt er f er es wi t h . . . any per son because that per son i s or has been,or i n or der t o i nt i mi dat e such per son or any ot her per son or any cl assof per sons f r om, obt ai ni ng or pr ovi di ng r epr oduct i ve heal t h ser vi ces. 18 U. S. C. 248( a) ( 1) .



41/74

41

cont ent - based r egul at i on f or t he pur poses of t he Fi r st

Amendment . As t he Supreme Court expl ai ned i n Hi l l ,

I t i s common i n t he l aw t o exami ne the cont ent of a

communi cat i on t o determi ne t he speaker ' s purpose. Whethera par t i cul ar st at ement const i t ut es a thr eat , bl ackmai l , anagr eement t o f i x pr i ces, a copyr i ght vi ol at i on, a publ i cof f er i ng of secur i t i es, or an of f er t o sel l goods of t endepends on t he pr eci se cont ent of t he st atement . We havenever hel d, or suggest ed, t hat i t i s i mpr oper t o l ook att he cont ent of an or al or wr i t t en st at ement i n or der t odet er mi ne whet her a rul e of l aw appl i es t o a cour se ofconduct . Wi t h r espect t o t he conduct t hat i s t he f ocus oft he Col or ado st at ut e, i t i s unl i kel y t hat t her e woul d of t enbe any need t o know exact l y what words were spoken i n or dert o det er mi ne whet her s i dewal k counsel or s ar e engagi ng i nor al pr ot est , educat i on, or counsel i ng r at her t han pur esoci al or r andom conver sat i on.

Theoret i cal l y, of cour se, cases may ar i se i n whi ch i t i snecessar y t o revi ew t he cont ent of t he st at ement s made by aper son appr oachi ng wi t hi n ei ght f eet of an unwi l l i ngl i st ener t o det er mi ne whet her t he appr oach i s cover ed byt he st atut e. But t hat r evi ew need be no more ext ensi vet han a det er mi nat i on whet her a gener al pr ohi bi t i on ofpi cket i ng or demonst r at i ng appl i es t o i nnocuous speech.The r egul at i on of such expr ess i ve act i vi t i es, by

def i ni t i on, does not cover soci al , r andom, or ot herever yday communi cat i ons. See Webst er ' s Thi r d NewI nt er nat i onal Di ct i onar y 600, 1710 ( 1993) ( def i ni ngdemonst r at e as t o make a publ i c di spl ay of sent i ment f oror agai nst a per son or cause and pi cket as an ef f or t t oper suade or ot her wi se i nf l uence) . Never t hel ess, we havenever suggest ed t hat t he ki nd of cur sor y exami nat i on t hatmi ght be r equi r ed t o excl ude casual conver sat i on f r om t hecover age of a regul at i on of pi cket i ng woul d be pr obl emat i c.

530 U. S. at 721- 22 ( emphasi s added) . The Cour t s i nsi ght can be

r est at ed r at her succi nct l y: a r egul at i on i s not cont ent - based

si mpl y because an enf or ci ng of f i cer mi ght have t o consi der what

an i ndi vi dual i s sayi ng t o det er mi ne whet her she i s expr essi ng

her sel f i n t he manner pr oscr i bed.



42/74

42

The ot her provi si ons i n t he Or di nance ar e al so cont ent -

neut r al . The t er m r epr oduct i ve heal t h car e f aci l i t y i ncl udes

any f aci l i t y wher e l egal l y aut hor i zed per sons pr ovi de heal t h

car e servi ces or heal t h car e counsel i ng r el at i ng t o t he human

r epr oduct i ve system. BCO 21- 112. I t i s cer t ai nl y t r ue t hat

demonst r at i ons i n t he vi ci ni t y of a r epr oduct i ve heal t h car e

f aci l i t y ar e mor e l i kel y t o f eat ur e cer t ai n cont ent t han, say,

demonst r at i ons near a pedi at r i ci an s of f i ce; however , t he mer e

f act t hat t he Or di nance wi l l di spr opor t i onat el y bur den

i ndi vi dual s pr ot est i ng f or or agai nst a par t i cul ar pr ocedur e i s

i nsuf f i ci ent t o r ender i t cont ent - based. See Hi l l , 530 U. S. at

724 ( r ej ect i ng as f l awed t he t heor y that a st at ut e

r est r i ct i ng speech becomes unconst i t ut i onal l y cont ent based

because of i t s appl i cat i on t o the speci f i c l ocat i ons wher e t hat

di scour se occur s) ( quot at i on omi t t ed) ; Hoye, 653 F. 3d at 846

( [ N] ei t her t he f act t hat t he Or di nance appl i es onl y to speech

out si de r epr oduct i ve heal t h car e f aci l i t i es, not hospi t al s

gener al l y, nor t he f act t hat i t pr ot ect s onl y t hose seeki ng t o

ent er t he f aci l i t i es r ender s i t cont ent - based. ) ; McGui r e I ,

260 F. 3d at 44 ( Al t hough t he Act cl ear l y af f ect s ant i - abor t i on

pr ot est er s mor e t han ot her gr oups, t her e i s no pr i nci pl ed basi s

f or assumi ng t hat t hi s di f f er ent i al t r eat ment r esul t s f r om a

f undament al di sagr eement wi t h t he cont ent of t hei r

expr essi on. ) . I n f act , as i t i s def i ned i n t he Or di nance, t he



43/74

43

t er m RHCF does not di scr i mi nat e bet ween f aci l i t i es t hat pr ovi de

par t i cul ar ser vi ces such as abor t i on or cont r acept i on and t hose

t hat do not . 18

Si mi l ar l y, t he exempt i on of RHCF empl oyees and agent s

act i ng wi t hi n t he scope of t hei r empl oyment does not r ender t he

Or di nance cont ent or vi ewpoi nt - based. The exempt i on i dent i f i es

i ndi vi dual s by vi r t ue of t hei r associ at i on wi t h an RHCF rat her

t han t he cont ent or vi ewpoi nt of t hei r speech, and i t i s agai n

si gni f i cant t hat t he par t i cul ar RHCF t hat empl oys t hem i s

pr ot ect ed by t he buf f er zone regar dl ess of whet her i t has

adopt ed a pr o- choi ce or pr o- l i f e vi ewpoi nt . Fur t her mor e, t he

exempt i on i s l i mi t ed i n si gni f i cant r espects: Fi r st , i t appl i es

onl y t o empl oyees or agent s of an RHCF, not t o al l i ndi vi dual s

shar i ng t he vi ewpoi nt hel d by t hat RHCF. BCO 21- 113 ( emphasi s

added) . Second, i t onl y appl i es when t hose agent s and empl oyees

ar e act i ng wi t hi n t he scope of t hei r empl oyment . I d.

( emphasi s added) . The Or di nance t her ef or e appl i es t o an RHCF

empl oyee or agent who, by congr egat i ng, pi cket i ng, pat r ol l i ng,

or demonst r at i ng, i s not act i ng wi t hi n t he scope of her

empl oyment .

As ot her cour t s have not ed, t her e ar e al so r at i onal , non-

di scr i mi nat or y reasons f or i ncl udi ng t he agent or empl oyee

18 The quest i on of whet her a pr ovi si on r est r i ct i ng speech near al lf aci l i t i es t hat pr ovi de abor t i ons i s not pr esent ed i n t hi s case, sot here i s no need t o answer i t .



44/74

44

except i on. The Ci t y coul d have concl uded t hat cl i ni c empl oyees

ar e l ess l i kel y t o engage i n di r ect i ng of unwant ed speech t owar d

capt i ve l i st ener sa dat um t hat t he Hi l l Cour t r ecogni zed as

j ust i f yi ng t he st at ute t her e. McGui r e I , 260 F. 3d at 46

( ci t i ng Hi l l , 530 U. S. at 715- 17) ; see al so McCul l en I , 571 F. 3d

at 178 ( [ T] he except i on f or per sons associ at ed wi t h RHCFs

r emai ns r easonabl y rel at ed t o t he l egi sl at ur e s l egi t i mat e

publ i c saf et y obj ect i ves. No mor e i s exi gi bl e t o r ej ect t hi s

aspect of t he pl ai nt i f f s f aci al chal l enge. ) . [ W] her e

di f f er ent i al t r eat ment i s j ust i f i ed, on an obj ecti ve basi s, by

t he gover nment s cont ent - neut r al ef f or t t o combat secondar y

ef f ect s [of cer t ai n speech] , i t i s i nsuf f i ci ent t hat a

r egul at i on may have been adopt ed i n di r ect r esponse t o the

negat i ve i mpact of a par t i cul ar f or m of speech. McGui r e I , 260

F. 3d at 45 ( ci t i ng Hi l l , 530 U. S. at 723; Madsen, 512 U. S. at

762- 64) . Even i f t he Cour t assumed t hat t he Or di nance woul d

af f ect ant i - abor t i on pr ot est er s mor e t han ot her gr oups, i t woul d

st i l l be per mi ssi bl e as wr i t t en.

2. Si gni f i cant Gover nment al I nt er est sOn i t s f ace, t he Or di nance al so ser ves si gni f i cant

gover nment al i nt er est s. I n Schenck, t he Supr eme Cour t expl ai ned

t hat t he i nt er est s of ensur i ng publ i c saf et y and or der ,

pr omot i ng t he f r ee f l ow of t r af f i c on st r eet s and si dewal ks,

pr ot ect i ng pr oper t y r i ght s, and pr ot ect i ng a woman s f r eedom t o



45/74

45

seek pr egnancy- r el at ed servi ces wer e, i n combi nat i on,

si gni f i cant enough t o j ust i f y an appr opr i at el y t ai l or ed

i nj unct i on t o secur e uni mpeded physi cal access t o t he cl i ni cs.

519 U. S. at 376; see al so Hi l l , 530 U. S. at 715 ( ci t i ng si mi l ar

i nt er est s t o uphol d a buf f er zone cr eat ed by st at ut e) ; Oper at i on

Rescue Nat l , 273 F. 3d at 202 ( r ecogni zi ng t hat ensur i ng publ i c

saf et y and or der , pr ot ect i ng f r eedom t o r ecei ve r epr oduct i ve

heal t h servi ces, advanci ng medi cal pr i vacy and t he wel l - bei ng of

pat i ent s seeki ng car e at f aci l i t i es, and saf eguar di ng pr i vat e

pr oper t y ar e si gni f i cant gover nment al i nt er est s) . Sect i on 21-

111 of t he Or di nance repeat s t hese i nt er est s al most ver bat i m.

Faci ng an uphi l l bat t l e i n l i ght of t hose pr ecedent s, t he

Pl ai nt i f f s r et r eat t o a f ami l i ar r ef r ai n: pr et ext . They ar gue

t hat because sect i on 21- 113( 1) , t he di r ect pr ohi bi t i on on

bl ocki ng access t o RHCFs, accompl i shes t he pur poses of t he

Or di nance, t he r eal mot i vat i on behi nd sect i on 21- 113( 2) must be

mor e si ni st er . 19 See Pl s. Mem. at *28, ECF No. 9. I n suppor t

protest zone decision

Documents