---
title: "Hill v. Colorado"
description: "The Colorado statute is constitutional. It is a content-neutral time, place, and manner regulation that leaves open ample alternative channels of communication."
type: "case"
court: "U.S. Supreme Court"
decided: "2000-06-28"
citation: "530 U.S. 703 (2000)"
docket: "98-1856"
status: "Doubtful"
source_url: "https://www.abhortion.org/cases/hill-v-colorado-2000.html"
---

# Hill v. Colorado

_Full caption: Hill et al. v. Colorado et al._

**Citation:** 530 U.S. 703 (2000) · **Docket No.** 98-1856

**Status:** Doubtful

| Field | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Argued | January 19, 2000 |
| Decided | June 28, 2000 |
| Vote | 6-3 |
| Majority author | Stevens, J. |
| Joined by | Rehnquist, C.J.; O'Connor, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, JJ. |

## Question presented

Whether Colorado's statute making it unlawful within 100 feet of a health facility entrance to 'knowingly approach' within 8 feet of another person, without consent, for purposes of 'passing a leaflet or handbill,' 'displaying a sign,' or 'engaging in oral protest, education, or counseling' violates the First Amendment.

## Holding

The Colorado statute is constitutional. It is a content-neutral time, place, and manner regulation that leaves open ample alternative channels of communication.

## Reasoning

Justice Stevens held the law was content-neutral because it applied to all approaches, not just anti-abortion speech, and served significant state interests in protecting patients accessing medical care.

## Opinions

### Majority — Stevens, J.

_Joined by Rehnquist, C.J.; O'Connor, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, JJ._

The Colorado statute is constitutional. It is a content-neutral time, place, and manner regulation that leaves open ample alternative channels of communication.

### Concurrence — Souter, J.

_Joined by O'Connor, Ginsburg, Breyer, JJ._

Emphasized the content-neutrality of the statute.

### Dissent — Scalia, J.

_Joined by Thomas, J._

Argued the statute was content-based and should fail strict scrutiny; sharply criticized the majority for creating an 'abortion-speech-only' First Amendment doctrine.

### Dissent — Kennedy, J.

_Not joined by any other justice_

Characterized the statute as vague, overbroad, and viewpoint discriminatory.

## Key quotes

> "Today's decision is not an isolated distortion of our traditional constitutional principles, but is one of many aggressively pro-abortion novelties announced by the Court in recent years... Today, however, the ability of a citizen to approach another person on a public sidewalk to hand out a leaflet, to display a sign, or to speak, is no longer a First Amendment right."
> — Scalia, J. (dissenting) · 530 U.S. at 741

## Practical effect

Colorado and similar 'floating buffer zone' laws were upheld. The ruling was in significant tension with McCullen v. Coakley (2014), which struck down a Massachusetts fixed buffer zone. Hill has been widely criticized as anomalous First Amendment doctrine.

## Perspectives

The summaries below are descriptive, not evaluative — an attempt to represent fairly how each camp typically frames this case.

### Abolitionist framing

Abolitionists sharply criticize Hill as an example of anti-pro-life bias in First Amendment doctrine. Its continued vitality after McCullen (2014) is doubtful.

### Mainstream pro-life framing

Widely criticized as departing from ordinary First Amendment doctrine to disfavor pro-life speech.

### Pro-choice framing

Defended as necessary protection for patients accessing sensitive healthcare.

## Significance

In significant tension with McCullen (2014); several Justices (Scalia in McCullen; Thomas, Alito) have urged overruling.

| Measure | Score |
| --- | --- |
| Overall significance | 4 / 10 |
| Legal precedential weight | 4 |
| Practical impact on access | 2 |
| Movement relevance (abolitionist) | 5 |
| Enduring relevance, 2026 | 5 |

## Sources

### Primary sources

- [supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/530/703](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/530/703/)

### Secondary sources

- [firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/hill-v-colorado](https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/hill-v-colorado/)

## Related cases

**Cites earlier cases:**

- Madsen v. Women's Health Center (1994)

**Cited by later cases:**

- [McCullen v. Coakley (2014)](mccullen-v-coakley-2014.md)

## Notes

In McCullen (2014), Scalia's concurrence urged overruling Hill; the majority pointedly declined to reach the question.