preview

Court Proceeding Against Petitioners at the Women Health Center

Decent Essays
Procedural History: The Petitioners, who were antiabortion, Madsen and other protesters regularly protested the Respondent which is the Women Health Center in Melbourne, Florida. The Women’s Health center sought and was granted by a trial court and injunction on several outcomes, which restrained the Petitioners’ ability to protest. The Petitioner’s appeal to the Supreme Court which claimed that the injunction restricted the protester’s right of free speech that was protected under the First Amendment of the Constitution. Statements of Facts: Judy Madsen and other protesters (the Petitioners) protest abortion clinics run by the Women’s Health Center (the Respondents). The protesters picketed and gave some sidewalk counseling outside the…show more content…
Issues: What is the appropriate standard of review for evaluating on free speech aimed at protecting the rights of women seeking abortion services? Do the expanded provisions of the injunction protecting the immediate surroundings of the clinic unconstitutionally restrict petitioner’s free speech rights? Do the restrictions establishing a buffer zone around the homes of clinic staff violated the First Amendment? Answers of Holdings: Due to the consent-neutral restriction, the Court determined that the terms of the injunction should be in which determining whether they burden no more speech than is necessary to serve important state interests. The restrictions was upheld and overturned in some parts. The Court found that the 36 foot buffer zone and the noise restrictions for the private property around the clinic, then the 300 feet no approach zone, the protections around the clinic staff homes, and then the objectionable imagery provision, claiming it restricted more speech than was necessary to protect important state interests. Reasoning: Chief Justice Rehnquist explained that the restrictions at issue were content-neutral. In order for it to be upheld, need only it is limited in such a way to prohibit only enough speech as is necessary to serve some important government purpose. The restrictions on the noise level of the 36 buffer zone was reasonable for given the difficulty of patients and staff in
Get Access