Maine’s Unconstitutional Assault on Pro-Life Speech: ACLJ Defends Religious Liberty in the Public Square

From Ohio to Illinois, the ACLJ is standing on the front lines defending the constitutional rights of pro-life advocates against government overreach. We now have a new case defending pro-life rights from assault by the state. In a troubling case out of Maine, we are representing John Andrade Jr., a Maine resident whose sincere religious expression outside a Planned Parenthood facility has made him the target of an unconstitutional lawsuit brought against him by the state of Maine. We filed a major brief Thursday on his behalf, defending his constitutional rights against the state’s motion for an injunction.

The State’s Unconstitutional Overreach

The Maine Attorney General’s office has filed a civil lawsuit against Mr. Andrade under the Maine Civil Rights Act, seeking what amounts to a statewide injunction on his First Amendment rights. The state’s complaint alleges that Mr. Andrade’s religious expression – including preaching, praying, and playing music on public sidewalks – somehow violates patients’ civil rights simply because his voice can be heard inside the building.

The efforts to criminalize pro-life advocacy are chilling. Take action with us and add your name to the petition: Stop Criminalizing Saving Unborn Babies.

The state is proceeding under Maine’s Civil Rights Act, specifically 5 M.R.S. § 4684-B(2)(D), which penalizes intentionally making noise that can be heard within a healthcare building after being ordered by police to cease, when done with intent to “jeopardize the health of persons receiving health services” or “interfere with the safe and effective delivery of those services.” The statute’s vague language and discriminatory enforcement reveal its true purpose: silencing pro-life voices in the public square. The law subjects violators to civil penalties up to $5,000 per incident and potential criminal prosecution as a Class E crime.

But the state’s requested remedy reveals the true scope of their constitutional assault. Rather than seeking narrowly tailored relief related to any specific conduct, Maine is asking the court to ban Mr. Andrade from coming within 150 feet of any Planned Parenthood facility statewide – including facilities where no alleged violations of the noise ordinance have occurred. The state even seeks to ban him from encouraging others to come near Planned Parenthood. This is far beyond anything the law authorizes.

A Pattern of Viewpoint Discrimination

This case exposes a disturbing pattern of selective enforcement that should alarm every American who values free speech. As we note in our legal filings:

The State’s selective enforcement of this Civil Rights Act provision against only pro-life speakers, combined with its failure to pursue similar actions against speakers with opposing viewpoints, establishes the pretextual nature of its claimed neutral enforcement. The practical effect of the State’s enforcement pattern is to create a regulatory environment where supporters of abortion services can engage in vocal advocacy near PRCs, or even Planned Parenthood facilities, without fear of civil rights violations, while opponents of abortion services face the constant threat of significant civil penalties and criminal prosecution for similar activities.

The state’s enforcement pattern reveals its true motivation: suppressing pro-life viewpoints rather than protecting healthcare delivery through neutral application of noise regulations. While pro-life advocates like Mr. Andrade face civil penalties up to $5,000 per violation and potential criminal prosecution for audible speech, supporters of abortion services face no similar scrutiny for equally audible advocacy.

Constitutional Defects in Maine’s Approach

Our Response to the State’s Preliminary Injunction Motion exposes multiple constitutional violations in Maine’s approach:

Unconstitutional Vagueness: The statute provides no objective standard for what conduct would unlawfully “interfere” with healthcare. The repeated allegation that speech could be heard “within the building” offers no meaningful guidance about permissible volume levels, leaving speakers to guess whether their constitutionally protected expression might subject them to prosecution.

Overbroad Relief: The requested 150-foot statewide buffer zone bears no relationship to the localized conduct alleged. As we argue in our brief: “The State seeks to silence Mr. Andrade, not just at the clinic where alleged conduct occurred, but at facilities across the state where the State has presented no evidence of any alleged statutory violation.”

Content-Based Discrimination: The statute requires authorities to examine the speaker’s intent, which necessarily involves analysis of speech content. This transforms what the state claims is a neutral noise regulation into an impermissible content-based restriction subject to strict scrutiny.

The ACLJ’s Commitment to Pro-Life Free Speech

For decades, the ACLJ has stood to defend pro-life advocates’ constitutional rights. We have successfully challenged buffer zones, defended sidewalk counselors, and protected religious expression in the public square. Our victories in cases like Harpring v. Louisville and our ongoing advocacy have established crucial precedents that protect the rights of those who speak for the voiceless.

This case continues that tradition. Mr. Andrade’s activities stem from his sincere religious beliefs regarding the sanctity of human life and his desire to offer alternatives and counseling to women considering abortion. The government cannot silence such core religious and political expression simply because officials disagree with the message.

Judicial Precedent Against Maine’s Approach

Remarkably, this same Maine Superior Court previously rejected an identical approach. In State v. Ingalls, the court refused to grant a 50-foot restriction against a similar pro-life advocate, finding such relief “an unnecessary burden on his right to free speech in a historically public forum.”

Now Maine seeks a 150-foot prohibition – three times broader – covering not just the same location but facilities statewide where no problems have been alleged. This escalation demonstrates the state’s determination to silence pro-life voices regardless of constitutional constraints.

The Broader Implications

This case represents more than an attack on one man’s rights – it’s part of a broader effort to sanitize the public square of pro-life expression. If Maine succeeds, it will establish a dangerous precedent that allows states to silence unpopular viewpoints through selective enforcement of vague statutes and overbroad injunctions.

The Supreme Court’s decision in McCullen v. Coakley (in which the ACLJ filed an amicus brief), which struck down Massachusetts’ 35-foot buffer zone around abortion facilities, makes clear that such restrictions “burden substantially more speech than necessary” and violate core First Amendment principles. Maine’s even broader approach cannot survive constitutional scrutiny.

Moving Forward

We have filed a comprehensive brief challenging the constitutionality of the requested preliminary injunction. Our arguments demonstrate that Maine’s approach violates established precedent, which requires narrow tailoring of speech restrictions and prohibits viewpoint discrimination. We will soon be filing a motion to dismiss the case itself.

Mr. Andrade has the right to express his religious convictions on public sidewalks – the traditional public forum where American democracy was born. As this case proceeds, we remain committed to defending the constitutional rights of all Americans to speak truth in the public square, regardless of whether their message proves popular with government officials. Saving babies should not be criminalized. Take action with us and add your name to the petition: Stop Criminalizing Saving Unborn Babies.