Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Hill v. Colorado

Supreme Court of the United States · 2000 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawFirst AmendmentFreedom of SpeechTime, Place, and Manner RestrictionsPublic ForumFirst Amendmentpublic sidewalkhealth care facility

Facts

Colorado enacted a statute regulating speech-related conduct within 100 feet of the entrance to any health care facility. The challenged provision made it unlawful to knowingly approach within eight feet of another person, without that person's consent, for the purpose of passing a leaflet or handbill, displaying a sign, or engaging in oral protest, education, or counseling. Petitioners were abortion protesters who engaged in 'sidewalk counseling' on public sidewalks near facilities where abortions were performed or referrals made, and they alleged the statute chilled their speech. The record showed confrontational demonstrations at clinics had impeded access and created emotional strain, although there was no evidence that petitioners themselves had been abusive or confrontational.

Issue

Whether Colorado's statute prohibiting a person from knowingly approaching within eight feet of another person without consent, within 100 feet of a health care facility entrance, for leafletting, sign display, or oral protest, education, or counseling, violates the First Amendment on its face.

Rule

A statute regulating speech-related conduct in a traditional public forum is valid if it is a content-neutral time, place, and manner restriction that is narrowly tailored to serve significant governmental interests and leaves open ample alternative channels of communication. A regulation is content neutral when it is justified without reference to the content of speech, applies equally regardless of viewpoint or subject matter, and regulates location or manner rather than suppressing particular messages.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Oregon enacts a statute providing that within 75 feet of any entrance to a health care facility, no person may knowingly approach within 6 feet of another person, without consent, for the purpose of handing over a pamphlet, showing a sign, or engaging in oral protest, education, or counseling. The law applies to every health care facility in the state, including hospitals, urgent care centers, and dental offices.

On a facial First Amendment challenge, which argument best supports upholding the statute?

Explanation. The majority upheld a similar law because it was a content-neutral time, place, and manner regulation: it regulated the location and manner of approach, not any viewpoint or subject. The Court emphasized that a law is content neutral when justified without reference to speech content and when it serves significant interests such as protecting access, privacy, and providing clear guidance to law enforcement. It need not be the least restrictive means.