ACLJ Files Reply Brief at the Supreme Court Asking the Court To Hear Case Defending Pro-Life Sidewalk Counselors From Unlawful Prosecution

The ACLJ’s fight to protect the free speech rights of sidewalk counselors has taken another step forward in our case, Turco v. City of Englewood, N.J. We are pleased to announce that we have filed our reply brief with the U.S. Supreme Court, addressing the City of Englewood’s opposition to our petition for a writ of certiorari (explained in more detail here).

The journey of this case has been long, beginning in 2015 when we sued Englewood, New Jersey, for its ordinance banning free speech activities in buffer zones outside health care and transitional facilities – an ordinance that includes criminal penalties. These buffer zones have greatly hindered the First Amendment right of our client, Jeryl Turco, to provide compassionate counseling and support to women immediately outside an abortion clinic’s front door.

After mixed results in lower courts, including a ruling against us by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, we brought this case to the Supreme Court. The Third Circuit’s decision, which relied heavily on the zombie precedent of Hill v. Colorado, stands in stark contrast to other federal court rulings on similar laws, such as the Sixth Circuit’s decision in Sisters for Life v. Louisville-Jefferson County, where we obtained a preliminary injunction for our sidewalk counselor clients.

Our reply brief reinforces our argument that the Third Circuit’s decision cannot stand. We maintain that the government’s authority to regulate protected speech on public sidewalks is greatly limited and that Englewood should have pursued less restrictive measures before resorting to speech-free zones. As the Supreme Court has stated, “If the First Amendment means anything, it means that regulating speech must be a last – not first – resort.”

Furthermore, our reply brief amplifies why the Hill decision, which has been criticized directly by the Supreme Court as a distortion of First Amendment principles, should be overturned. We point out that petitions asking the Court to overturn Hill will keep coming until the Court officially – and at long last – overturns that decision. In fact, yet another petition has been filed with the Court raising the issue of overturning Hill’s precedential status. (The ACLJ will file an amicus brief in support of that petition representing our former client in Hill v. Colorado, Mrs. Hill herself.)

With our reply brief now filed, we await the Supreme Court’s decision on whether our petition will be granted – a decision that could come down at the end of September. While the Court grants relatively few petitions, we believe the significance of this case – both in terms of the circuit split and the broader implications for free speech – makes it worthy of review.

A favorable decision from the Court would not only reaffirm the importance of free speech in public forums, it would also protect the rights of sidewalk counselors, like Jeryl Turco, to continue their crucial work of offering support and alternatives to women at the very place where such information is most effective.

We will let you know once we have received the Court’s decision regarding our petition.