Hill v. Colorado

E666866

Hill v. Colorado is a 2000 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld a state law creating buffer zones around individuals entering healthcare facilities, significantly shaping First Amendment jurisprudence on protest and speech restrictions near abortion clinics.

Try in SPARQL Jump to: Statements Referenced by

Statements (47)

Predicate Object
instanceOf United States Supreme Court case
abortion-related case
free speech case
affectedArea sidewalks and public ways near health care facilities
citation 530 U.S. 703
court Supreme Court of the United States
decisionDate 2000-06-28
dissentingJustices Anthony Kennedy NERFINISHED
Antonin Scalia NERFINISHED
Clarence Thomas NERFINISHED
William Rehnquist NERFINISHED
docketNumber 98-1856
fullCaseName Leila Jeanne Hill, et al. v. State of Colorado, et al. NERFINISHED
holding Colorado’s 8-foot floating buffer zone statute is constitutional under the First Amendment
The statute does not violate the right to free speech on public sidewalks
The statute is a valid content-neutral time, place, and manner restriction
impact narrowed the scope of First Amendment protections for close-range counseling near clinics
significantly influenced later abortion clinic protest jurisprudence
upheld state authority to impose floating buffer zones near clinic entrances
jurisprudentialSignificance landmark case on the constitutionality of buffer zones under the First Amendment
keyConcept buffer zones around health care facilities
captive audience doctrine
content neutrality
public forum doctrine
time, place, and manner test
lawDescription Prohibited knowingly approaching within 8 feet of another person, without consent, to pass a leaflet, display a sign, or engage in oral protest, education, or counseling
lawDescription Statute created an 8-foot floating buffer zone within 100 feet of the entrance to a health care facility
legalIssue First Amendment free speech NERFINISHED
abortion clinic protests
content-neutral time, place, and manner regulation
speech restrictions near health care facilities
majorityJustices Anthony Kennedy NERFINISHED
David Souter NERFINISHED
John Paul Stevens NERFINISHED
Ruth Bader Ginsburg NERFINISHED
Sandra Day O’Connor NERFINISHED
Stephen Breyer NERFINISHED
William Rehnquist NERFINISHED
majorityOpinionBy John Paul Stevens NERFINISHED
originatingJurisdiction Colorado NERFINISHED
relatedCase Madsen v. Women’s Health Center, Inc. NERFINISHED
McCullen v. Coakley NERFINISHED
Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York NERFINISHED
statuteInvolved Colorado Revised Statute § 18-9-122(3)
subjectMatter regulation of protest activity near abortion clinics
speech restrictions around health care facilities
vote 6-3

Referenced by (1)

Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.

McCullen v. Coakley relatedCase Hill v. Colorado