The First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause; Whether a county ordinance regulating speech near medical facilities should be enjoined; McCullen v Coakley; Whether the ordinance was "narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest"

The court held that defendant-County’s ordinance likely violated the First Amendment free-speech rights of plaintiffs-pro-life organizations by creating a “buffer zone” preventing them from “sidewalk counseling” people entering medical facilities. The court found that the ordinance was not “narrowly tailored.” Thus, it reversed the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction and remanded with instructions for the district court to preliminarily enjoin defendants from enforcing the ordinance. Plaintiffs wanted to offer women pamphlets and other unsolicited information as they entered an abortion clinic in Louisville, Kentucky. They claimed the restrictions the ordinance placed upon them—a 10-foot buffer zone near the clinic’s entrance—violated their First Amendment rights. The ordinance imposed the buffer zone “around the entrance of any ‘healthcare facility’ in the County and forbids any non-exempt individual from ‘knowingly enter[ing]’ or ‘remaining . . . within’ it.” The zone runs from the facilities’ entrances “to the closest adjacent sidewalk curb and 10 feet from side to side” and applies during the facilities’ posted business hours. Plaintiffs alleged the “restriction on sidewalk speech” violated their First Amendment rights and requested that it be enjoined. The district court declined. The court did not address whether the ordinance was content neutral because it concluded that “the ordinance fails narrow tailoring anyway, and at all events some of the claimants” did not argue the ordinance was content based. As to the narrowly tailored issue, the County argued the buffer zone “facilitates safe, unimpeded access to abortion facilities and prohibits obstruction of them.” However, plaintiffs claimed that it imposed “serious burdens” on their speech and compromised “their ‘ability to initiate the close, personal conversations’” they believed were “essential to ‘sidewalk counseling.’” The court held that the buffer zone did not “closely” fit the County’s access interests. It held that the ordinance was too broad, actually imposing restrictions “on all medical facilities in Louisville.” Also, the court held that the County failed to show it had tried less intrusive means to address its concerns, such as more patrols in the area. The court held that under McCullen, the “buffer zone is not narrowly tailored.”