SUMMER INSTITUTE
2014
June 24-26,
McCullen v. Coakley
Petitioner: Eleanor McCullen, Jean Zarrella, Gregory A. Smith, Eric Cadin.Cyril Shea, Mark
Bashour, and Nancy Clark
Respondent: Martha Coakley, Attorney General for the state of Massachusetts
Facts of the Case
In 2009, the Massachusetts state legislature created a 35-foot buffer zone around the
entrances, exits, and driveways of abortion clinics. The petitioners, individuals who
routinely engage in “pro-life counseling” outside of state abortion clinics, sued in federal
district court and argued that the law violated the First Amendment protection of free
speech. The district court held that, although the law placed a restriction on the time, place,
and manner of speech, the law was constitutional because it was content-neutral and still
left adequate, if not perfect, alternative means of communications. The U.S. Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed and held that the Supreme Court, in Hill v. Colorado
had already affirmed a similar statute in Colorado that prohibited certain activities within
100 feet of abortion clinics.
Question
1. Did the First Circuit err in upholding the Massachusetts law under the First Amendment,
as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment?
2. If the Supreme Court’s ruling in Hill v. Colorado applies, should that ruling be limited or
overruled?
Conclusion
Decision
Source: MCCULLEN v. COAKLEY. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law.
07 June 2014. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2013/2013_12_1168>.
CLASSROOM LAW PROJECT
www.classroomlaw.org
620 SW Main, Ste. 102, Portland, OR 97205
503-224-4424