Abhortion for the abolition of abortion
The Index Print
Cases/ U.S. Supreme Court/ 2014

McCullen v. Coakley

573 U.S. 464 (2014) · Docket No. 12-1168

Full caption: McCullen v. Coakley, Attorney General of Massachusetts

Good law

Court
U.S. Supreme Court
Argued
January 15, 2014
Decided
June 26, 2014
Majority author
Roberts, C.J.
Joined by
Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, JJ.
Vote
9-0
Case No. 18 of 28 All cases, indexed

Question presented

Whether Massachusetts's 35-foot fixed 'buffer zone' around reproductive health care facilities violates the First Amendment.

Holding

The buffer zone violates the First Amendment because it burdens substantially more speech than necessary to achieve the state's asserted interests.

Key reasoning

Chief Justice Roberts held the law content-neutral but not narrowly tailored. Massachusetts had less restrictive alternatives (including the federal FACE Act) available. The buffer zone displaced pro-life 'sidewalk counselors' from traditional public forums.

§ 1 Reasoning

Chief Justice Roberts held the law content-neutral but not narrowly tailored. Massachusetts had less restrictive alternatives (including the federal FACE Act) available. The buffer zone displaced pro-life 'sidewalk counselors' from traditional public forums.

§ 2 Opinions

Majority

Roberts, C.J.

Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, JJ.

The buffer zone violates the First Amendment because it burdens substantially more speech than necessary to achieve the state's asserted interests.

Concurrence

Scalia, J.

Kennedy, Thomas, JJ.

Concurred in judgment only. Argued the majority should have gone further and held the law content-based, overruling Hill v. Colorado (2000).

Concurrence

Alito, J.

Not joined by any other justice

Concurred in judgment. Argued the law's exemption for clinic employees constituted viewpoint discrimination.

“The buffer zones burden substantially more speech than necessary to achieve the Commonwealth's asserted interests.” Roberts, C.J. (majority) · slip op. at 30

§ 3 Key quotes

“Today's opinion carries forward this Court's practice of giving abortion-rights advocates a pass when it comes to suppressing the free-speech rights of their opponents. There is an entirely separate, abridged edition of the First Amendment applicable to speech against abortion.”
Scalia, J. (concurring in judgment)concurrence at 1

§ 4 Practical effect

Fixed buffer zones around abortion clinics were invalidated nationwide. States retained the ability to enact more narrowly tailored measures (such as the federal FACE Act's individualized approach).

§ 5 Perspectives

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

Abolitionist framing

Abolitionists strongly support McCullen for protecting sidewalk counseling and pro-life street engagement — a core abolitionist activity (End Abortion Now, Apologia Church, Abolitionists Rising all engage in clinic-adjacent 'consciousness raising').

Mainstream pro-life framing

Widely celebrated by mainstream pro-life groups for protecting sidewalk counseling.

Pro-choice framing

Advocates criticized the ruling as prioritizing protester speech over patient safety and access.

§ 6 Significance

5/ 10

Key First Amendment precedent protecting anti-abortion sidewalk counseling; remains relevant given continued clinic-front activism.

Legal precedential weight6
Practical impact on access3
Movement relevance (abolitionist)7
Enduring relevance, 20266

§ 7 Sources

Cites earlier cases

Hill v. Colorado (2000) Madsen v. Women's Health Center (1994)
Editorial note Scalia's concurrence urged overruling Hill v. Colorado (2000), which upheld a Colorado 100-foot 'floating' buffer around individuals entering health facilities.