Court Proceeding Against Petitioners at the Women Health Center

Procedural History:
The Petitioners, who were antiabortion, Madsen and other protesters regularly protested the Respondent which is the Women Health Center in Melbourne, Florida. The Women’s Health center sought and was granted by a trial court and injunction on several outcomes, which restrained the Petitioners’ ability to protest. The Petitioner’s appeal to the Supreme Court which claimed that the injunction restricted the protester’s right of free speech that was protected under the First Amendment of the Constitution.
Statements of Facts:
Judy Madsen and other protesters (the Petitioners) protest abortion clinics run by the Women’s Health Center (the Respondents). The protesters picketed and gave some sidewalk counseling outside the clinic in Melbourne, Florida. Madsen and other protester staged frequent demonstrations, sought to speak to patients who are coming into and leaving the clinic, they also carried signs and placards, and use electronics to help carry their voices. In which Madsen and Petitioners have been enjoin by the Florida court from interfering and possible abuse of the patient’s entering and existing the clinic. About six months or so later, the Respondents sought to enjoin the Petitioners from continuing the similar protesting. The trial court then issued a broader injunction, which in tell that the Court create a 36 feet buffer zone and 300 feet no approach zone, for then the Petitioners challenged it as a violation of their First Amendment. This injunction to the Amendment prohibits the petitioners from coming into the premises of the respondents, blocking or impeding access to the premises, picketing and demonstrating or coming into a property line of the clinic, and from making noise from 7:30am to noon ...

... middle of paper ...

...Second, Justice Souter highlighted that even the petitioners understand Florida’s valid interests in protecting public safety, property rights, and the free flow of traffic. Justice Stevens concurred, on one that Stevens agreed with the Court that injunctions should be afforded more leniency than generally applicable legislation, but thought that the majority should have probably provided even greater distinction between the two. And the second is the Justice’s disagreement with the Court regarding the 300 foot no approach zone around the clinic which restricted the protesters’ rights to approach those visiting the clinic. To compare the instant case to situations restricting labor pickets, Justice Stevens preferred to uphold the restrictions. Finally Justice Scalia was joined by Justices Kennedy and Thomas who concurred the judgment while dissenting in some parts.