Englewood Abortion Protest Curbs Violate Free Speech, Court Rules
An Englewood ordinance designed to deter "sidewalk counseling" of women entering an abortion clinic violates the First Amendment, a New Jersey federal judge has ruled.
November 15, 2017 at 02:43 PM
4 minute read
Susan Wigenton
An ordinance designed to deter “sidewalk counseling” of women entering an Englewood abortion clinic violates the First Amendment, a New Jersey federal judge has ruled.
Tuesday's decision by U.S. District Judge Susan Wigenton in Turco v. City of Englewood follows a 2014 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in McCullen v. Coakley, striking down a similar law in Massachusetts. Wigenton said Englewood's law, like the one in Massachusetts, was content-neutral but nonetheless violated the First Amendment because it was not narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest.
Englewood's law was enacted in response to protesters who congregate outside Metropolitan Medical Associates, an abortion clinic. Protesters have sought to engage clients of the clinic in discussions about abortion, have handed out flyers and rosaries and have occasionally engaged in shouting, pushing and blocking entrances, according to the court opinion.
The city established a buffer zone on the sidewalk around the clinic's entrance and driveway and prohibited people from remaining in that area unless they are entering or leaving the facility, or using the sidewalk while passing through the area. The ordinance also exempts first responders, utility workers and other public employees acting in the scope of their employment.
Like the Massachusetts law, Englewood's version governed conduct outside all health care facilities, not just abortion clinics. But Wigenton said that makes the ordinance overbroad.
“Defendant created a sweeping regulation that burdens the free speech of individuals, not just in front of the clinic, but at health care and transitional facilities citywide. To meet the narrowly-tailored requirement, defendant must create an ordinance that targets the exact wrong it seeks to remedy,” Wigenton said.
Englewood is obligated to show that alternate measures would fail to achieve its goal of protecting the privacy of clinic patients, Wigenton said. The city asserted that it tried dealing with the issue through increased police presence or injunctive relief, but “even drawing all justifiable inferences in favor of defendant, the record does not show support that defendant seriously tried or considered any less restrictive alternatives,” Wigenton said. The city did not prosecute any protesters for activities outside the clinic in the past five years before it adopted the ordinance, and did not seek injunctive relief against protesters whose conduct was the impetus to the ordinance, the judge said.
The suit was filed by Jeryl Turco, an abortion opponent who seeks to engage clinic clients in “quiet, friendly, non-confrontational conversation with a view toward offering them alternatives to abortion,” according to court documents. Her form of counseling requires her to be in close proximity to clients entering the clinic. She sought an injunction against enforcement of the ordinance.
The ordinance establishes a buffer zone that extends eight feet to either side of the clinic's doorway and its driveway. Turco and others are excluded from 48 feet of the public sidewalk outside the clinic.
Donald Klein of the Weiner Law Group in Parsippany, who represented Englewood, did not return a call.
Turco's lawyers were Mark Scirocco of the Legal Center for Defense of Life in Budd Lake and Francis Manion of the American Center for Law and Justice in New Hope, Kentucky.
Manion said the city's argument failed because it didn't support its claim that it tried a less-restrictive approach to governing the clinic entrance before enacting the ordinance.
“You have to try other things, really try other things, before you go to a buffer zone,” Manion said.
Englewood had no evidence of any arrests of clinic protesters for harassment in the last five years, he said. Manion said his group does not support tactics of blocking entrances or pushing and shoving clinic clients, but the city failed to differentiate between such activities and his client's method of activism.
“The city just went after everybody who is against abortion. It lumps everybody in the same category,” Manion said.
Manion said other means of regulating the clinic entrance areas are available, including calling the police if a crime is committed by a protester. The Englewood facility has its own guard stationed inside the entrance, he added. The regulation of protesters outside the Englewood clinic is particularly complex because its entrance opens right onto the public sidewalk unlike most other abortion facilities that are set back from the street and have their own parking, Manion said.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllHit by Mail Truck: Man Agrees to $1.85M Settlement for Spinal Injuries
Appellate Div. Follows Fed Reasoning on Recusal for Legislator-Turned-Judge
4 minute readChiesa Shahinian Bolsters Corporate Practice With 5 From Newark Boutique
5 minute readOn the Move and After Hours: Brach Eichler; Cooper Levenson; Marshall Dennehey; Archer; Sills Cummis
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 2Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 3NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 4A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
- 5Deception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250