{"schema":"abhortion.org/case.v1/v1","id":"mccullen-v-coakley-2014","type":"case","case_name_short":"McCullen v. Coakley","case_name_full":"McCullen v. Coakley, Attorney General of Massachusetts","citation":"573 U.S. 464 (2014)","docket_number":"12-1168","status":"Good law","court":"U.S. Supreme Court","date_argued":"2014-01-15","date_decided":"2014-06-26","vote":"9-0","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.","reasoning_summary":"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.","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).","opinions":[{"role":"majority","author":"Roberts, C.J.","joined_by":"Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, JJ.","summary":"The buffer zone violates the First Amendment because it burdens substantially more speech than necessary to achieve the state's asserted interests."},{"role":"concurrence","author":"Scalia, J.","joined_by":"Kennedy, Thomas, JJ.","summary":"Concurred in judgment only. Argued the majority should have gone further and held the law content-based, overruling Hill v. Colorado (2000)."},{"role":"concurrence","author":"Alito, J.","summary":"Concurred in judgment. Argued the law's exemption for clinic employees constituted viewpoint discrimination."}],"key_quotes":[{"quote":"The buffer zones burden substantially more speech than necessary to achieve the Commonwealth's asserted interests.","speaker":"Roberts, C.J. (majority)","location":"slip op. at 30"},{"quote":"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.","speaker":"Scalia, J. (concurring in judgment)","location":"concurrence at 1"}],"perspectives":{"abolitionist":"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_prolife":"Widely celebrated by mainstream pro-life groups for protecting sidewalk counseling.","prochoice":"Advocates criticized the ruling as prioritizing protester speech over patient safety and access."},"significance":{"overall":5,"legal_precedential_weight":6,"practical_impact_on_access":3,"movement_relevance_abolitionist":7,"enduring_relevance_2026":6,"rationale":"Key First Amendment precedent protecting anti-abortion sidewalk counseling; remains relevant given continued clinic-front activism."},"sources":{"primary":[{"name":"law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-1168","href":"https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-1168"}],"secondary":[{"name":"en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCullen_v._Coakley","href":"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCullen_v._Coakley"}]},"related_cases":{"cites_earlier":["Hill v. Colorado (2000)","Madsen v. Women's Health Center (1994)"]},"notes":"Scalia's concurrence urged overruling Hill v. Colorado (2000), which upheld a Colorado 100-foot 'floating' buffer around individuals entering health facilities.","links":{"html":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/mccullen-v-coakley-2014.html","markdown":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/mccullen-v-coakley-2014.md","json":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/mccullen-v-coakley-2014.json"}}