What was the Supreme Court's reasoning for declining to hear the cases challenging buffer zones around abortion clinics?

The Supreme Court did not provide explicit reasoning for declining the cases, but the decision maintains the precedent set by Hill v. Colorado, which allows buffer zones to protect clinic patrons from harassment.

Why did conservative justices Alito and Thomas dissent from the decision?

Justices Alito and Thomas dissented because they believe the Hill v. Colorado precedent should be reexamined, especially after the reversal of Roe v. Wade.

What was the context behind the Carbondale, Illinois ordinance being challenged?

The Carbondale ordinance was enacted to address increased protests after the overturning of Roe v. Wade, as the city became a destination for patients from nearby states with abortion bans.

6 sources·Politics

Supreme Court Upholds Anti-Abortion Buffer Zones, Sparks Dissent Among Justices

The Supreme Court declined to hear cases challenging buffer zones for anti-abortion protests, signaling a reassertion of regulations governing clinic access.

33%

67%

The distribution of story sources: left-leaning (blue), center (light gray), and right-leaning (red).

Reliable

The underlying sources consistently report facts with minimal bias, demonstrating high-quality journalism and accuracy.

Leans Left

The underlying sources slightly lean left.

But anti-abortion activists said the measures violate free-speech rights and should be on their “deathbed” after the justices overturned Roe v. Wade and the nationwide right to abortion.
Supreme Court won’t hear cases from anti-abortion activists on protest limits
PBS NewsHour·1M
Reliable
This source consistently reports facts with minimal bias, demonstrating high-quality journalism and accuracy.
·
Leans Left
This outlet slightly leans left.
The court only grants review in a relative handful of the thousands of petitions it receives annually.
Supreme Court rejects challenges to decision upholding abortion clinic buffer zones
MSNBC·1M
Mostly Reliable
This source is generally reliable but sometimes includes opinion, propaganda, or minor inaccuracies.
·
Left
This outlet favors left-wing views.
The majority did not explain their reasoning for turning down the appeals, as is typical, but two conservative justices, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, disagreed.
Supreme Court turns back challenges to laws keeping abortion opponents away from clinics, patients
Associated Press·1M
Reliable
This source consistently reports facts with minimal bias, demonstrating high-quality journalism and accuracy.
·
Center
This outlet is balanced or reflects centrist views.
The court declined to hear challenges to a law in southern Illinois and to a 2014 ordinance in Englewood, New Jersey, that created a protest-free buffer zone around certain health care facilities.
Supreme Court rejects challenges to protest-free zones at abortion clinics
USA TODAY·1M
Reliable
This source consistently reports facts with minimal bias, demonstrating high-quality journalism and accuracy.
·
Center
This outlet is balanced or reflects centrist views.
The ordinance enacted in Carbondale came just six months after the Supreme Court's conservative majority rolled back the constitutional right to abortion.
Supreme Court turns away bid to overturn 25-year-old decision on abortion clinic buffer zones
CBS News·1M
Reliable
This source consistently reports facts with minimal bias, demonstrating high-quality journalism and accuracy.
·
Center
This outlet is balanced or reflects centrist views.
As a result of that ruling, protesters have increasingly targeted clinics in liberal-leaning states close to conservative states where abortion has been banned or severely restricted.
Supreme Court rejects challenges to abortion clinic ‘buffer zone’ laws that restrict protesters
NBC News·1M
Reliable
This source consistently reports facts with minimal bias, demonstrating high-quality journalism and accuracy.
·
Center
This outlet is balanced or reflects centrist views.

Updated: Feb 24th, 2025, 4:33 PM ET

Summary

A summary of the key points of this story verified across multiple sources.

The Supreme Court has declined to hear challenges to anti-abortion demonstration laws in Carbondale, IL, and Englewood, NJ, which restrict protest activities near clinics. This decision maintains the precedent from Hill v. Colorado, allowing buffer zones that aim to protect clinic patrons from harassment. Conservative justices Alito and Thomas dissented, arguing that the Hill ruling should be reexamined following the 2022 reversal of Roe v. Wade. The Carbondale ordinance was enacted to address increased protests after Roe was overturned, while the Englewood law, established in 2014, continues to be upheld by lower courts despite First Amendment challenges.

Perspectives

Compare opinions on this story from liberal (Left), conservative (Right) or center-leaning news organizations.

This story is either non-partisan or does not have the required sources to create partisan perspectives.

FAQs

A list of follow-up questions readers often ask about this story.

History

A summary of how this story has evolved over the last 24 hours.