The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear a challenge to buffer zones around abortion clinics, which are designed to protect patients from harassment. This decision leaves in place a 2000 ruling that allowed such zones. The challenge was brought by anti-abortion activists who argued that these zones infringe on their right to free speech.
The justices rejected appeals from “sidewalk counselors” in New Jersey and Illinois. These counselors had claimed that the buffer zones violate their First Amendment rights. Conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito expressed their willingness to consider the appeals.
Buffer zones have been a contentious issue for decades, pitting free speech rights against concerns about harassment and violence. The Supreme Court has a conservative majority, which recently overturned the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling in 2022. Since then, the debate over buffer zones has intensified.
In Illinois, a group called Coalition Life challenged a local ordinance that created an 8-foot buffer zone around healthcare facilities. This ordinance was modeled after a Colorado law upheld by the Supreme Court in 2000. However, the ordinance has since been repealed.
In New Jersey, a counselor named Jeryl Turco challenged a similar buffer zone law in Englewood. Both cases were dismissed by lower courts, citing the 2000 precedent.
Justice Thomas criticized the court’s decision, stating that the 2000 ruling is outdated and should be overturned. He argued that buffer zones can be used to silence those with anti-abortion views.
Alexis McGill Johnson, CEO of Planned Parenthood, welcomed the decision, saying buffer zones create a safer environment for patients and staff. She emphasized that no one should face threats or intimidation while seeking healthcare.
The Supreme Court’s decision comes as several states have restricted abortion access, while some municipalities have enacted buffer zones to protect clinics. The issue remains highly contentious, with ongoing debates over free speech and patient safety.
Read more: