Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York

Media Items
Oral Argument
Get Adobe Flash Player
Advocates
Jay A. Sekulow (Argued the cause for the petitioners)
Lucinda M. Finley (Argued the cause for the respondents)
Walter E. Dellinger, III (On behalf of the United States, as amicus curiae supporting the respondents)
Case Basics
Docket No.: 
95-1065
Petitioner: 
Schenck
Respondent: 
Pro-Choice Network of Western New York
Opinion: 
519 U.S. 357 (1997)

Cite this page
The Oyez Project, Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York , 519 U.S. 357 (1997)
available at: (http://oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1996/1996_95_1065)
Facts of the Case: 

This action was filed by the Pro-Choice Network of Western New York (PCN), on behalf of health care providers, to enjoin Schenck and others from continuously staging blockades and other disruptive illegal activities in front of abortion clinics. After its restraining order proved ineffective, a District Court issued a preliminary injunction creating "fixed buffer zones" which prohibited demonstrations within fifteen feet of entrances to abortion clinics, parking lots, or driveways. The court also created "floating buffer zones" prohibiting demonstrators from coming within fifteen feet of people or vehicles seeking access to the clinics. Following the Appellate Court's decision to uphold the District Court's ruling that the "buffer zones" were constitutional, the Supreme Court granted Schenck certiorari.

Question: 

Did either or both types of "buffer zones" violate Schenck's First Amendment right to freedom of speech.

Conclusion: 

The Court held that while the "fixed buffer zones" were constitutional, the "floating buffer zones" were not. It distinguished between the two types of "buffer zones." The Court supported the "fixed buffer zones" because they protected the government's interest in public safety, by preventing protesters from engaging in unlawful conduct (i.e. spitting on and shouting in clinic users' faces, blocking doorways), while still allowing them to be heard from a short distance. "Floating buffer zones," by contrast, were struck down by the Court since they imposed a greater burden on free speech than was required to protect the government's interest in public safety and free traffic flow. The Court found that forcing demonstrators to remain at least 15 feet away from the people they wished to communicate with would create an inordinate amount of dangerous confusion and congestion.

Decisions

Decision: 6 votes for Pro-Choice Network of Western New York, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

Sort by Ideology

Wrote the majority opinion
Rehnquist
Voted with the majority
Stevens
Voted with the majority
O'Connor
Wrote a dissent
Scalia
Voted with the minority, joined Scalia's dissent
Kennedy
Voted with the majority
Souter
Voted with the minority, joined Scalia's dissent
Thomas
Voted with the majority
Ginsburg
Wrote a special concurrence
Breyer

Full Opinion by Justice William H. Rehnquist

Split Vote

Sort by Ideology

Wrote the majority opinion
Rehnquist
Voted with the majority
Stevens
Voted with the majority
O'Connor
Wrote a special concurrence
Scalia
Voted with the majority, joined Scalia's concurrence
Kennedy
Voted with the majority
Souter
Voted with the majority, joined Scalia's concurrence
Thomas
Voted with the majority
Ginsburg
Wrote a dissent
Breyer