Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York

Supreme Court of the United States · 1997 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawFirst AmendmentInjunctionsAbortion clinic protestsBuffer zonesFirst Amendmentinjunctioncontent neutral

Facts

Respondent clinics and doctors alleged that antiabortion protesters repeatedly engaged in illegal blockades, trespass, crowding, yelling, and sometimes grabbing, pushing, and shoving people seeking to enter or leave the clinics. The District Court found that even after a TRO, protesters continued 'constructive blockades' by congregating around entrances and driveways, intimidating patients and staff, and impeding vehicle and pedestrian access, while police had difficulty responding effectively. The preliminary injunction barred demonstrating within 15 feet of clinic doorways, driveways, and parking lot entrances, and within 15 feet of any person or vehicle seeking access to or leaving the facilities, with a limited sidewalk-counseling exception. Petitioners challenged the fixed and floating 15-foot buffer zones and the cease-and-desist requirement on First Amendment grounds.

Issue

Whether a content-neutral injunction restricting demonstrations outside abortion clinics violates the First Amendment by creating 15-foot fixed buffer zones around clinic entrances and 15-foot floating buffer zones around persons and vehicles seeking access to or leaving the clinics. Also implicated was whether the related cease-and-desist condition on sidewalk counseling could stand if tied to those zones.

Rule

Under Madsen, content-neutral injunctions that restrict speech are not assessed under ordinary time, place, and manner scrutiny, but by asking whether the challenged provisions burden no more speech than necessary to serve a significant governmental interest. Significant interests here can include ensuring public safety and order, promoting the free flow of traffic on streets and sidewalks, protecting property rights, and protecting a woman's freedom to seek pregnancy-related services.

🔒

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.

In Cleveland, a state court enjoins a protest group after months of evidence that members repeatedly clustered in a fertility clinic's doorway and driveway, causing patients to stop and cars to back up into the street. The order bars demonstrators from standing within 12 feet of the clinic's doorways and driveway entrances, but leaves them free to chant, hold signs, and leaflet outside that line.

If the protesters challenge the injunction under the First Amendment, which is the strongest argument for upholding the 12-foot setback?

Explanation. Content-neutral injunctions are tested by whether they burden no more speech than necessary to serve a significant governmental interest. A fixed buffer zone around entrances may be upheld where the record shows prior blocking, crowding, and interference with access, making a fixed separation necessary to ensure safe and unimpeded entry and exit. The majority rejected any rule that a court must first try a non-speech-restrictive injunction, and it did not treat sidewalks as immune from all injunction-based restrictions.