Fighting Unconstitutional Anti-Pro-Life Speech Laws in Federal Appeals Court | American Center for Law and Justice

Fighting Unconstitutional Anti-Pro-Life Speech Laws

By Francis J. Manion1522162800000

Pro-abortion laws are increasingly targeting pro-life free speech, but we’re fighting back.

A few months ago we reported on our sweeping victory in U.S. District Court in New Jersey on behalf of prolife sidewalk counselor, Jeryl Turco. In that case, the federal court ruled that the City of Englewood, New Jersey violated the First Amendment’s guaranty of freedom of speech when it enacted a buffer zone ordinance that created a virtual obstacle course on the public sidewalk outside of an abortion business. The obstacle course required Turco and other counselors to navigate a confusing and ever-evolving maze of painted rectangles and semi-circles while also avoiding oncoming cars and trucks just to be able to have private conversations with prospective patients in what the Supreme Court has always considered to be a “quintessential public forum,” i.e., a city sidewalk.

Basing its ruling on the U.S. Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in McCullen v. Coakley, a decision which held that a similar Massachusetts buffer zone law was unconstitutional a scant two months after Englewood adopted its ordinance, the New Jersey court accepted all of our arguments on behalf of Turco and granted us summary judgment on all counts. Englewood appealed to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Late last week, we filed our response brief to that appeal.

Did we say a “similar Massachusetts buffer zone law?” Actually, as anybody can see from Addendum A of our Brief (at page 78-79), the Englewood law is practically identical to the unconstitutional Massachusetts law. And while Englewood would like to pretend that its “8 foot buffer zone” is considerably smaller than the one in Massachusetts, the reality is that in Englewood we are dealing with not one, but two, buffer zones, the combined effect of which is to turn the public sidewalk in front of the abortion center into a building-wide First Amendment minefield for unwary sidewalk counselors.

Ever since McCullen, at least, it has been clear that sidewalk counseling in front of abortion facilities enjoys the same First Amendment protection traditionally enjoyed by other forms of speech such as leafleting, hand billing, and just plain talking. And the McCullen Court made it crystal clear that, if a government finds it necessary to put some restrictions on speech-related conduct in those locations, it may only do so as a last resort and only after having tried or seriously considered other less restrictive measures. Englewood claimed to be dealing with an uptick of obstructive and harassing behavior by anti-abortion protestors – not the sidewalk counselors like Turco – and thus sought to control things via the buffer zone ordinance. But the city admitted that it never brought charges against or sought an injunction against any of the alleged obstructers and harassers. Instead, Englewood’s first real documented response was a speech-eliminating buffer zone that applied equally to people like Turco and everybody else (except the folks who were employed by the abortion business.) McCullen says that’s putting the law enforcement cart before the constitutional horse, and it violates the First Amendment.

In our brief, we again make the point that:

McCullen teaches . . . that “[w]here certain speech is associated with particular problems, silencing the speech is sometimes the path of least resistance. But by demanding a close fit between ends and means, the tailoring requirement prevents the government from too readily ‘sacrific[ing] speech for efficiency.’”

Taking the path of least resistance, all in the name of (attempted) efficiency, is precisely what the City has done in this case. Instead of focusing on the precise group of individuals causing particular problems at a specific place and time, the City adopted the Ordinance (a virtual copycat of the law unanimously struck down in McCullen) that creates speech-censoring zones outside numerous facilities throughout the City. That is not a narrowly tailored remedy to serve any interests advanced by the City.

We are optimistic that the Court of Appeals will see this case, as the lower court did, as a fairly simple application of McCullen, and will uphold our client’s free speech rights. We anticipate that argument will be held within the next several months, with a decision by the end of the year. We will keep you posted.

DonateYOUR GIFT DOUBLED
$20
$40
$60
$120
$240
Make this a monthly Tax-Deductible gift.

Take action with the ACLJ as we continue fighting for life and liberty. Make a tax-deductible gift today. Have your gift doubled through our Matching Challenge.

Email Address is required.
First Name is required.
Last Name is required.
Credit Card Number is required.
Verification Code is required.
Expiration Month is required.
Expiration Year is required.
Receive the latest news, updates, and contribution opportunities from the ACLJ.
Latest in
Pro Life

This Is the Beginning of the End for Roe v. Wade

By Jordan Sekulow1627334133279

There has not been a case that is as on track to reverse Roe v. Wade quite like this one. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization came after a challenge against the Mississippi law that banned abortion after 15 weeks. The State of Mississippi asked the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade and...

read more

ACLJ Files at Texas Supreme Court Against Taxpayer Abortion Funding

By Laura Hernandez1627304340000

The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) just filed an amicus brief in Zimmerman v. City Austin , urging the Texas Supreme Court to hear a case involving the use of taxpayer money to support abortion related services. Texas is at the forefront of the effort to defund Planned Parenthood. In...

read more

Mississippi Asks the Supreme Court to Overturn Roe v. Wade

By Logan Sekulow1627074264692

Mississippi’s Attorney General Lynn Fitch has just filed a brief asking the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade and allow for individual states to determine the options for life and abortion. The case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization , is related to a Mississippi law that was enacted...

read more

The House Is Moving to Force Taxpayer Funded Abortion

By Logan Sekulow1626729009521

Since 1976 federal law has used the Hyde Amendment to protect U.S. taxpayers from directly funding abortions. This law has held up throughout multiple court cases and Administrations. Now, the Hyde Amendment is in jeopardy of being repealed. President Biden and the Left are attempting to eliminate...

read more

American Center for Law and Justice | Washington D.C. | Copyright © 2021, ACLJ | Privacy & Security Policy | Annual Report

The ACLJ is an organization dedicated to the defense of constitutional liberties secured by law.

Visit ACLJ.org/help to submit a legal help request. All legal requests submitted via any other method cannot be answered.

Through our $1 Million Matching Challenge, all gifts will be doubled, dollar-for-dollar, up to the online daily total.

American Center for Law and Justice is a d/b/a for Christian Advocates Serving Evangelism, Inc., a tax-exempt, not-for-profit, religious corporation as defined under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, specifically dedicated to the ideal that religious freedom and freedom of speech are inalienable, God-given rights. The Center's purpose is to engage legal, legislative and cultural issues by implementing an effective strategy of advocacy, education and litigation to ensure that those rights are protected under the law. The organization has participated in numerous cases before the Supreme Court, Federal Court of Appeals, Federal District Courts, and various state courts regarding freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Your gift is very much appreciated and fully deductible as a charitable contribution. A copy of our latest financial report may be obtained by writing to us at P.O. Box 90555, Washington, DC 20090-0555.