The US Supreme Court issued two hot-button, long-awaited rulings today. The result in both cases was unanimous, but in both cases there was a sharp divide on the Court as to the reasoning, and as to how far the Court should go.
The first case has special relevance to Massachusetts. McCullen v. Coakley (yes, that’s Martha) was a challenge to Massachusetts’s fixed 35-foot buffer zone around abortion clinics, into which no protesters or “sidewalk counselors” are permitted. All nine Supreme Court Justices agreed that the 35-foot zone goes too far in terms of restricting the free speech rights of the protesters – and, according to the Court’s opinion, no other state has gone quite as far as Massachusetts (although apparently a few other localities have done so).
The lead opinion is by Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan (interestingly, the same lineup as we saw in the Obamacare decision). That opinion holds that the buffer zone law is not a “content-based” restriction on speech, which would have subjected it to the most exacting level of scrutiny, but then concludes that even under the lesser standard applicable to content neutral laws that restrict speech, the law failed. The Court seemed especially concerned with three points:
- the law expressly applies to public ways and public sidewalks, which are “traditional public fora” on which the government’s ability to restrict speech has generally been very limited;
- by looking at access laws from other states and the federal government, the Court inferred that there are lots of other, less restrictive ways of protecting clients at these clinics from harassment; and
- Massachusetts did not make an adequate case that all other options had been tried and had failed. This last point may be especially salient:
Respondents [Coakley et al.] have but one reply: “We have tried other approaches, but they do not work.” Respondents emphasize the history in Massachusetts of obstruction at abortion clinics, and the Commonwealth’s allegedly failed attempts to combat such obstruction with injunctions and individual prosecutions. They also point to the Commonwealth’s experience under the 2000 version of the Act, during which the police found it difficult to enforce the six foot no-approach zones given the “frenetic” activity in front of clinic entrances. According to respondents, this history shows that Massachusetts has tried less restrictive alternatives to the buffer zones, to no avail.
We cannot accept that contention. Although respondents claim that Massachusetts “tried other laws already on the books,” they identify not a single prosecution brought under those laws within at least the last 17 years. And while they also claim that the Commonwealth “tried injunctions,” ibid., the last injunctions they cite date to the 1990s. In short, the Commonwealth has not shown that it seriously undertook to address the problem with less intrusive tools readily available to it. Nor has it shown that it considered different methods that other jurisdictions have found effective.
At least on an initial read, it does not seem to me that this opinion slams the door on abortion clinic buffer zones. To the contrary, the Court several times referred with apparent approval to the 2000 version of MA’s own law, and to laws currently in effect in other jurisdictions. One easy initial step would seem to be to reenact the 2000 version of the law – it may not be perfect, but it’s better than nothing, and it would give law enforcement at least some tools to combat harassment. A longer-term solution should be to study the laws in jurisdictions specifically noted by the Court and see if they seem to be a better approach. This isn’t the end of the line, for sure. (The other four Justices, Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito, would likely never uphold a buffer zone, but at least at the moment, there doesn’t appear to be a fifth vote for that position.)
Today’s other case, National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning, concerns the President’s power to make “recess appointments,” i.e., to put in office for a limited time appointees who otherwise would require Senate approval while the Senate is out of session. I haven’t read the case in detail yet, but the bottom line (as delivered by Justice Breyer, in an opinion joined by Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan) appears to be this:
- the Senate is “in session” whenever it says it is, as long as it retains the ability to conduct business, even if it’s just a two-minute “pro forma” session, and
- a recess of less than 10 days between sessions is normally insufficient to allow for a recess appointment; however,
- recess appointments are permissible both for pre-existing vacancies and for vacancies that come into existence during a recess.
The result is that the President’s appointments to the NLRB that precipitated the case were invalid, because they occurred in a “recess” that was less than 10 days between pro forma sessions during which the Senate retained the ability to conduct Senate business. Four Justices (Scalia, writing for himself, Roberts, Thomas, and Alito) would have gone much further and drastically curtailed the recess appointment power, including by limiting it to vacancies that come into existence during a recess. But even under the majority opinion, the practical effect may be similar. Because either the House or the Senate apparently can force pro forma sessions (I don’t know the details of how that works, but several folks who know what they are talking about have said so), it would seem that if either chamber of Congress is under the control of the non-presidential party, the president’s recess appointment power can be stymied. It will be very interesting to see how this one plays out.
But, based on David’s summary, they both seem right to me. Obviously I would prefer it if protestors did not harass women going into clinics, but legislating against it seems problematic to me.
A Twitter user named Aura Bogado observes thus:
… Problematic is not impossible. I don’t see where the court struck down buffer zones, per se, rather than suggesting that a given buffer zone was of impermissible size. Without this, I suppose, some unscrupulous pol could, someday, suggest that a buffer zone extend from the front of the State House all the way to Old Sturbridge Village.
Well, it is a courthouse and A) some very important work needs to get done and 2) they have a more formal and deliberative process for hearing from citizens… That’s why, IIRC, the formal designation of participants is ‘petitioner’ rather than, say, ‘defendant’ or ‘plaintiff’… In the early days of ‘abortion clinics’ (a horrible term, since most of these places are medical facilities who perform many procedures only one of which is abortion) prior to the implementation of buffer zones (and perhaps the main impetus for them…) many protestors would block access and/or make it so difficult or onerous to enter one that they acted as a sort of veto on the process. That must not be allowed to happen either in abortion clinics or at the supreme court. People seeking help from medical facilities that do abortions have every right to seek that help and the protestors have NO right to block access or in any way impede their access. It is not very different with the supreme court: the petitioners have every right to get to the court building and be heard and the demonstrators would, in deed, be preventing the exercise of free speech by hindering petitioners and the justices.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/buildingregulations.aspx#Reg7
“This regulation does not apply on the perimeter sidewalks on the Supreme Court grounds.”
The Massachusetts law encompassed the entire sidewalk and then some.
This Supreme Court is a wholly owned subsidiary of today’s Republican Party. Easy for a bad-faith minority to call pro-forma sessions (which are needed sometimes because the Constitution won’t allow either house to recess without the other’s consent). With this ruling and non-stop filibusters with impunity, they can grind a federal agency to a halt. Literally, for the NLRB, which can’t function legally without at least 3 members. The decision is a license to obstruct. But it’s time to limit the filibuster some more.
Buffer zones, I think 35 feet is close enough to make your point. These people terrify people going for a medical procedure. Should i be allowed to harass everyone going into McDonald’s or Goldman Sachs HQ because I think it’s evil? I don’t think so. Will this case be applied to “free speech” pens at national conventions, which actually are of public and not private concern? I doubt it.
Yes you should, that’s what a picket line does no? It would’ve been very hard, seeing how they ruled in Snyder v Phelps, to see how the buffer law wouldn’t have to be modified. Freedom of speech means freedom to hear opinions you disagree with. With the Pope’s handpicked man in Italy calling abortion protestors ‘expressionless’ crazies , I think most people even within the pro-life movement are starting to realize these tactics are just too extreme and crazy. But, just as I wouldn’t prevent the Westboro Church from picketing a military funeral, or the Nazi’s marching in Skokie, or atheists and Catholics ducking it out with competing billboards in Time Square or displays on the Daley Center, I wouldn’t prevent these groups from protesting.
Obviously, the risk of physical harassment is real, and there will be ways to modify this law to protect women and clinic workers while mollifying the very legitimate civil liberty concerns involved.
I have no problem with expressing content I don’t support. I’m pretty close to a free speech absolutist. Nobody questions the right to speak out. But it’s a question of proximity here. The whole purpose is to intimidate people at their most vulnerable exercising a fundamental constitutional right. Picket lines are subject to innumerable restrictions.
(Haven’t been there lately, knock on wood.)
But seriously … to your point, you would not be allowed. You’d be removed pretty quickly.
Unless you sued and it went all the way to the Supreme Court.
I recall Cornel West’s reaction to open carry guys at early Tea Party rallies:
“Carry a gun in front of a bank, see how long you last.”
Sorry to be blunt, but these characters have dined out on the First Amendment for decades.
What happens at clinic skirmishes is not speech. A strong defense of the buffer-zone law should have developed a record of testimony to that effect.
If Massachusetts can craft a new law that protects clinic clients, staff, and volunteers from threats, intimidation, and assault, then no great harm done. Otherwise I hope for an extended restraining order.
Law enforcement officials did testify, and the court rejected their reasoning:
From the Atlantic’s summary:
I think you can craft a restraining order that can refer to specific activities, but I don’t see how you can stop people from handing out leaflets and peacefully engaging with women. If you can’t stop WBC from protesting a military funeral, if you can’t stop the Nazi’s in Skokie, etc.
As to Kirth’s point below, apparently Scalia is ok with getting rid of free speech zones at conventions:
If he could put his money where is mouth is, surely the SCOTUS buffer zone is far too extreme as well.
The free speech and free assembly of protestors is also a constitutional right, along with the right to choose. The government can’t stop the protestors anymore than it can stop the women from getting the procedure.
Does not sit down in the second row at the cemetery. They’re usually across the street. A march in Skokie nay offend but it’s not the same as getting in someone’s grill while they’re going about constitutionally protected business. Protest all you like. From a pretty darn modest 35 feet away.
The court just found that “modest 35 feet” to be unconstitutional, and they found this unanimously.
It did find the 100 foot bubbles with 8 foot exclusion around persons entering health clinics in Colorado did pass muster, and we used to have that until law enforcement asked for a more exclusionary 35 foot that banned any activity within 30 feet.
The key finding in the Hill decision was the idea of content neutrality
And furthermore:
I would say bringing back this rule, or modifying it to some extent (maybe 10 or 15 feet away from persons or avenues where persons may cross) would pass the current court. Probably in a similar 6-3 decision with Roberts and Kennedy joining the liberal bloc.
I am not arguing that I want pro-life activists to have this kind of direct access, I am arguing that we would not tolerate 35 foot buffers outside of Wal-Mart or the Harvard Doubletree to impede picket lines and union organizers. We would not tolerate 35 foot buffer zones outside of political conventions or candidate events and rallies. We would not tolerate 35 foot buffer zones outside of the office of the Archdiocese to prohibit pro-choice, pro-equality, or pro-abuse victim protests that may be levied against the Church.
The state is supposed to stay neutral on the question of choice. This is why women should be able to exercise that right without state interference, the state cannot express that neutrality via funding or via buffer zones that inhibit others who have a similar constitutionally protected right to practice their religious and political viewpoints via public protest and trying to dissuade women from getting abortions. Just as PETA protestors and union organizers can try and dissuade me from purchasing a Big Mac, or anti-death penalty activists can hold vigils outside of prisons and try and dissuade guards and witnesses from enabling it. I picketed military recruitment centers with anti-war literature to dissuade applicants from enlisting during the height of the Iraq War-I am certainly glad there was no buffer zone preventing me from exercising that right.
The FACE Act of 1994 prohibits most of the egregious activities.
It does not prohibit the following:
Distributing literature and sign carrying was directly impeded by the buffer zone, since it covered public sidewalks and entryways. Again, I disagree with these protestors and their tactics, but they have protected speech.
From the Politico article
The hell we wouldn’t. Congress passed a 300-foot buffer zone for military funerals. There are all sorts of buffer zones in force for churches and the like. There’s a 100-foot buffer zone for voting, upheld by the Supreme Court. They had people penned up in a concrete dungeon under the highway a quarter mile from the DNC and a federal judge upheld it. Why? The need for security “outweighs the First Amendment free speech rights of the protesters.”
Same here. I remember very well when someone was killed in Brookline because of these people. I’ve seen how they “leaflet” while they film you, record your license number, bring growling pit bulls, tell you you’re going to hell and that your organs will be vacuumed out. I have no doubt they’ll feel empowered by this decision.
It’s of no use to argue “this is what the Supreme Court decided, so there.” I know what they decided. I just don’t agree. There is no way to reconcile this case with Hill v. Colorado, decided just in 2000, which upheld a law with a 100-foot buffer zone around healthcare facilities that banned getting within 8 feet of a person to hand literature.
that the MA law was just as content-neutral as the law in Hill v. Colorado.
But there is a way to reconcile them. The Colorado statue applied to all health care facilities, and allowed a 100 ft buffer zone and an 8ft bubble around persons entering the facility. The 35 ft buffer zone was actually painted on the ground, on public sidewalks and thruways and directly enforced by law enforcement personnel. Furthermore, there was an exemption for employees to escort the women, and thus, violate the buffer zone, and while the law said the employees could not advocate the pro-chocie viewpoint while escorting the women, it seems that this speech regulation was harder to enforce than the one against anti-choice advocates. Thus, the government is essentially favoring and protecting one class of speech against another.
I think reverting to a Colorado style statue, or apparently a 15ft buffer zone, would restore the anti-choice advocates their constitutional rights to protest on public sidewalks, while also protecting the women whose health care decisions also enjoy constitutional protection. A 15 ft buffer zone combined with an 8 ft bubble might be the best combination, both seem to have passed muster in prior cases, and the personal bubble combined with the FACE Act would do the most to protect the women. We can’t prevent them from getting exposed to speech they may disagree with, even during vulnerable times. Obviously if holocaust victims in Skokie or the families of service members have to hear the WBC, women going to these clinics aren’t any different. I would strongly encourage our legislators to draft such a buffer/bubble combination while also encouraging you and others to stage counter demonstrations to drown out those voices. I’ve participated in several of those myself against WBC and Nazi’s on the public common and feel they serve a good coutnerbalance to the nastiness of the extremists and also serve to educate the public.
You think I’m saying something like, These people are such creeps, the First Amendment’s too good for them.
I’m not saying that. Everyone is entitled to civil rights, even creeps. Especially creeps.
I’m saying that intimidation, threats, (by anybody) and assault are not speech at all are and not protected by the constitution.
You think they are “protestors.” Spend a few weeks volunteering as an escort at a clinic and you’ll change your tune. (I have.) And you’ll understand what I am saying too, I think.
Maybe the lege can has together something that works as well and still passes muster. That’s the main thing.
I just object to the whole meme about how this is a protest, how this is a statement of conscience, how this is speech.
I often think that the ‘civil liberties’ component of this debate doesn’t quite get the scrutiny it deserves.
The ability to seek medical help in any place it is offered, of any kind, is just as much a civil liberty as the freedom of speech.
The use of the term ‘protect women and clinic workers’ is true only because, as has been amply demonstrated, the ‘protestors’ don’t believe that universal access to arbitrary medical service is a civil liberty. Buffer zones were enacted not because people liked to protest but because they would, under the guise of ‘protest’, actively and actually obstruct, disrupt and seek to make the process so onerous and hazardous as to affect a stoppage of the process. It’s the reverse of a boycott: an externally applied abstention. That’s not ‘protest’ that’s obstruction of one civil liberty under the guise of exercising another.
And picket lines pit the property rights of business owners against the assembly and free speech rights of union organizers. They often got violent in the past as well. The FACE Act, the 15 foot buffer zone that New York City has, the 100ft buffer with an 8ft bubble that Colorado has, and possibly even the 25 foot buffer that NH has, could all possibly pass muster. The main contention from the court, particularly the liberal bloc, was the idea that the clinic workers and their views and speech was essentially favored by the state against the anti-choice speech which was disfavored. Blocking of access to public sidewalks traditionally used for protests, etc.
The extreme examples of violence against abortion clinic workers and the extreme ‘civil disobedience’ of chaining to cars, throwing things at women, or verbally harassing them or grabbing them, are all prohibited by the federal FACE Act of 1994.
Actual clinics are getting shut down in some states due to arbitrary regulations, I would say the reproductive health advocacy community should turn its focus to those fights, and work with the legislature on a bill that satisfies the courts concerns regarding speech.
… That’s a fig leaf, and a not very robust one at that. (I’m not saying it’s your fig leaf, but rather that it ls the courts.) It’s one thing to say I can protest and do so. It’s quite another to get caught obstructing and say, ‘oh, well, I was just exercising my free speech rights.’ Worklng the refs is not a civil liberty… So, yeah, I would say the rights of clinic workers and their views and speech ought to be favored against the facade of speech by anti-choice obstructors. The very need of a buffer zone sorta implies this…
Set up Free Speech zones a few blocks away. Why should Planned Parenthood clients not have the same protection from discomfort as political convention delegates?
I want to know who will be first to test the Court’s ruling on it’s own property.
Speaking of property I assume clinics are still well within their rights to keep demonstrators off of their own land. Some years ago there was a clinic near me that was accessible via a rather long private driveway. Demonstrators were out on the main road, well outside of 35 feet, but ironically the presence of the demonstrators was the only reason I knew there was a clinic on that property to begin with.
with respect to clinics that require clients to enter via public sidewalks. A number of clinics have parking lots that are clinic property, and entrances directly from the parking lots; in those cases, protesters can’t get anywhere near the clients because they are relegated to the sidewalks in front of the building.
in urban areas, even if the facility does have a private lot, it’s often relatively near the sidewalk. Put up a fence? Nope. The clinic can’t — it’s too dangerous. They need line of site as far as possible so their security cameras and personnel have a better chance of identifying a violent threat or the perpetrator of a violent act.
These two items aren’t theoretic — I know of at least one clinic for which both of these comments describe exactly.
from blockading cars at the entrances to the parking lots, stopping cars that are trying to get access, and taking photos of passengers through the windows.
Any distance standard is going to be arbitrary, but people should not be allowed to impede the operation of a given establishment. Does this throw out buffers around polling places too? I say strengthen harassment laws either in language or enforcement. The demonstrators outside a nearby clinic a referred to elsewhere always seemed well-behaved when I passed – just holding signs saying “Choose Life” and such. One other observation is I have to wonder what the motives of some people are. If you are going to harass people, insult them, intimidate them, etc., you do not strike me as the type who is truly compassionate about the lot of the unborn and unwanted. If you really wanted to help you would be down at the adoption agency seeing how many children you could take in.
I’d like to see counter-demonstrations mounted at area Catholic parishes.
I think parishioners attending Sunday mass should be forced to walk a gauntlet of “counselors” asking them why they hate women, why they hate gays, when they’ll stop raping children — abusive, insulting, rude, and totally unfair counterparts to the abusive, insulting, rude, and totally unfair utterances of mobs that impede women seeking care at Planned Parenthood.
I think if more Catholics — especially lay Catholics — were forced to experience this behavior first-hand, we would likely less support from the Catholic church for the horrific behavior of anti-abortion demonstrators outside women’s health clinics.
Plenty of Catholics, especially in MA, don’t subscribe to these views. I don’t want to be harassed going into my church; I would never dream of doing it to anyone else. I don’t see the Catholic Church endorsing this behavior even if Randall Terry happens to identify as one. The better solution is to do counterdemonstrations at the clinics and volunteer to escort women through the gauntlet. I also fear the effect will be just the opposite of what you desire. Going tit for tat just escalates the situation and doesn’t solve anything. That’s how you get the Northern Ireland Troubles and continued violence in the Holy Land. One side needs to be bigger than that.
Is an evangelical Baptist, and an asshole, FWIW
…and has at various points run for office in both major parties’ primaries and as independent (never successfully, thank God!)
But yes, I do literally thank God he has never been elected.
And as John Oliver has pointed out, we got some homegrown lunatics here in MA and they are running for Governor
Women don’t want to be harassed going to a clinic. Most of the women who go to these clinics are NOT going for abortions, they’re going for regular exams, contraceptive prescriptions, and that sort of thing. Many of the women who visit the clinic on Harvard Street are themselves opposed to abortions — that’s a reason why many women need access to clinics like these so that they can get prescription contraceptives.
Sorry, but the Catholic church is THE leading opponent of access to abortion. It simply IS. The point of moving the demonstrations to parishes is PRECISELY because you (and other Catholics) don’t want to be harassed. As more Catholics are harassed, I suggest that those Catholics will be more and more strongly motivated to push the Church towards actively supporting these clinics.
The best way to stop abortions is to provide contraception. The linkage between prohibiting both contraception and abortion, while simultaneously declaring as a matter of dogma that the ONLY moral purpose of sex is procreation is the creation of the Catholic church.
Sometimes “going tit for tat” solves the problem. That’s how we got the civil rights bill, our own independence, and number of other major advances.
These activities at women’s clinics are totally unacceptable. It is disingenuous to claim that the Catholic Church doesn’t endorse this behavior — it is the direct result of the politicizing of the abortion issue that the Catholic church has been doing since Father Drinan was defrocked.
…but you are once again conflating the Church with individual Catholics. Given you’re history you’ll probably howl at this point that you didn’t say that ALL Catholics believe these things. I’m not Catholic; my denomination is prochoice as am I. Get me a quote from Archbishop O’Malley or another prelate egging these people on. I’m afraid the more Catholics are harassed the more they will circle the wagons. In case you haven’t noticed, parishioners don’t call the shots in the Catholic Church. There’s enough history of anti-Catholic bigotry (which you’re doing nothing to help, BTW) that I could see that happening. Next time there’s a terrorist attack by al-Qaida shall we start picketing every mosque we can find too?
He refrained from running for re-election to avoid that possibility, after the Pope ordered that all priests leave electoral politics. Drinan said leaving the priesthood was “unthinkable;” leaving Congress obviously was not.
But I do agree with Tom that his the pressure on him was a clear signal from the church. John Paul II had no objection to involvement in American politics, but he only wanted a certain kind of it.
You’re absolutely right. He was forced to step down because of his views.
I lived in Coolidge Corner. I’ve had to put up with these nut-cases.
Protestants don’t sit and pray the Rosary on a sidewalk in Coolidge Corner.
Let’s talk about what faith traditions are represented in the extremists causing the problem. I think you’ll find very few Jews, very few Muslims, very few Episcopalians, Congregationalists, Methodists, Lutherans, or other mainstream Protestants. I think you’ll find an ENORMOUS number of Catholics, and smaller number of extremist Assembly-Of-God types.
I don’t care what whether Randall Terry has the blessing of the Catholic Church or even whether or not he’s Catholic. I care about who those terrorists in Coolidge Corner are, where they worship, and how they are received by their fellow parishioners.
I think if you knew that three of the people sitting in your morning Mass were causing the ruckus outside your door week after week, you might start asking yourself — or them — whether they might perhaps modulate their tactics.
92% of Catholics support contraception and admit to using it, nearly 60% (the same number of the rest of the US population) of Catholics are pro-choice. And even the pro-life Curia is starting to distance itself from these protest movements
That is from Bishop Galantino, the Pope’s hand picked Conference President for the Italian bishops.
Frankly I have to agree with my Protestant friend Christopher, it is quite similar to claiming that Al Qaeda justifies suspicions against all Muslims. It is venturing into Juan Williams territory.
I also don’t think anyone should be harassed on their way to worship-that is not what liberals do-that’s what conservatives in Mufreesboro, TN or New York City do when they protest mosques. It’s what bigots in Belmont did to impede the Mormons. It’s what Christians who troll atheist gatherings do. It’s what Westboro Baptist does. It’s not what reasonable people should do.
I don’t see why I, or any other liberal Catholic, needs to be lumped in with the anti-abortion protestors. It’s an activity I’ve never engaged in, a priest has never encouraged me or a parish to engage in, or that I’ve been involved with. Some of the campus Catholics protested Roe at the Thompson Center, but nobody went to clinics, and Father Pat had a conniption when one of them used the campus chapel list host to advertise for a trip to protest Obama at Notre Dame. He didn’t want the chapel engaging sanctioning any partisan political activity. Neither do most priests.
I’m just saying that most of those creating the problems at these clinics are Catholics, and I think if the Catholic church was truly embarrassed by them it could and would do more to both discourage and distance itself from them.
The American Muslim community has gone to great, even enormous, lengths to denounce the extremism of Al Qaeda. The Catholic church has done nothing comparable with these anti-abortion extremists. The very fact that a single Bishop making such a statement is newsworthy demonstrates my point.
I also have to say, frankly, that much or even most of the conflict and horrific violence we see in the world today is the direct result of religious passions. My reaction is “a pox on all their houses”. Whether it be Muslims killing people for pretty much any excuse, Catholics harassing women trying visit their doctors, Jews killing Palestinians (and vice-versa), or even our Supreme Court opening the doors even wider to such passions here, it appears to me that religious passions are the root cause of an enormous portion of today’s tragedies — I’m weary of all of it.
It was/is a driving force behind the Civil Rights Movement, and inspired Mother Teresa to care for the poorest of the poor, just to cite a couple of examples off the top of my head.
I’m suggesting that today, and for the past several decades, it is doing more harm than good.
I was puzzling over the unanimous decision against buffer zones – I was expecting a 5-4 decision across the usual party lines.
Then I came up with a theory – the majority opinion was written by Roberts and supported by Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor. The more conservative justices wrote concurring opinions that (from what I can tell) wish the ruling were going further.
Did the liberal justices join Roberts in this restrained opinion to prevent him from creating a more sweeping majority decision with the conservatives?
Probably exactly what happened.
You might be overthinking this. Whatever its other flaws, the Roberts court has been really consistent on free speech issues (and really good). They even ruled that the dead puppy videos were protected.
My interpretation is that the justices simply and genuinely felt that the Massachusetts statute went too far. While I abhorred the chaos that the anti-abortion extremists created daily in Coolidge Corner during the ten years I lived there, I tend to be sympathetic with this decision. I think our First Amendment rights are VERY important, and I’m encouraged to see the Supreme Court unanimously agree.
The Court went out of its way to show the boundaries that such buffer zones must respect. I hope and pray that our current and about-to-be-elected officials act quickly to establish new buffer zones that reflect those boundaries.