The Supreme Court has refused to hear a case that could have overturned restrictions on pro-life speech outside abortion clinics, prompting a fiery dissent from Justice Clarence Thomas. The decision allows laws limiting pro-life activism near abortion facilities to remain in effect.
The cases stemmed from ordinances in Illinois and New Jersey that restricted where pro-life demonstrators could gather. Carbondale, Illinois, enforced a now-repealed rule barring speech within 100 feet of a clinic unless the facility approved. Englewood, New Jersey, maintains an eight-foot buffer zone at clinic entrances, preventing pro-life counselors from approaching women seeking abortions.
BREAKING: Justice Clarence Thomas criticized the Supreme Court for refusing to take an important case about a city that is banning pro-life free speech.
"Our refusal to provide clarity is an abdication of our judicial duty."https://t.co/q4wWch5g39 pic.twitter.com/k1LfuA1N5m
— LifeNews.com (@LifeNewsHQ) February 24, 2025
Thomas, with Justice Samuel Alito backing him, argued that the court had an obligation to review these cases. He pointed out that Hill v. Colorado, the 2000 decision that upheld such restrictions, contradicts decades of free speech precedent. He also noted that the court’s 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson decision, which overturned Roe v. Wade, further weakened the legal foundation for Hill.
Best laugh on the bench.
“One thing I’d say in response to the media, I will absolutely leave the court when I do my job as poorly as you do yours.” — Justice Clarence Thomas pic.twitter.com/5W1oZ0DRlb
— Terri Green (@TerriGreenUSA) February 22, 2025
“Hill has been seriously undermined, if not completely eroded,” Thomas wrote. He warned that lower courts are still treating Hill as binding precedent, despite its flaws, and that the Supreme Court should have clarified its defunct status.
With the court refusing to intervene, buffer zone laws remain in place in cities that enforce them, leaving pro-life activists unable to communicate their message directly to women outside abortion clinics. Critics argue that such laws are selectively enforced, allowing pro-abortion activists to gather freely while restricting pro-life speech.
