---
title: "McCullen v. Coakley"
description: "The buffer zone violates the First Amendment because it burdens substantially more speech than necessary to achieve the state's asserted interests."
type: "case"
court: "U.S. Supreme Court"
decided: "2014-06-26"
citation: "573 U.S. 464 (2014)"
docket: "12-1168"
status: "Good law"
source_url: "https://www.abhortion.org/cases/mccullen-v-coakley-2014.html"
---

# McCullen v. Coakley

_Full caption: McCullen v. Coakley, Attorney General of Massachusetts_

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

**Status:** Good law

| Field | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Argued | January 15, 2014 |
| Decided | June 26, 2014 |
| Vote | 9-0 |
| Majority author | Roberts, C.J. |
| Joined by | Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, JJ. |

## 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

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.

## Opinions

### Majority — Roberts, C.J.

_Joined by 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.

_Joined by 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.

## Key quotes

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

> "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

## 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).

## 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.

## Significance

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

| Measure | Score |
| --- | --- |
| Overall significance | 5 / 10 |
| Legal precedential weight | 6 |
| Practical impact on access | 3 |
| Movement relevance (abolitionist) | 7 |
| Enduring relevance, 2026 | 6 |

## Sources

### Primary sources

- [law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-1168](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-1168)

### Secondary sources

- [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCullen_v._Coakley](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCullen_v._Coakley)

## Related cases

**Cites earlier cases:**

- [Hill v. Colorado (2000)](hill-v-colorado-2000.md)
- 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.