The Supreme Court’s refusal to take up cases challenging buffer zones around abortion clinics has sparked criticism from Justice Clarence Thomas, who accused the court of failing to defend First Amendment rights. The decision means that local restrictions on pro-life advocacy outside clinics will remain in place.
The cases involved laws in Carbondale, Illinois, and Englewood, New Jersey. Carbondale’s ordinance, which has since been repealed, prohibited pro-life speech within 100 feet of a clinic unless permission was granted. Englewood’s law continues to prevent activists from coming within eight feet of clinic entrances unless they are clinic workers, patients or pedestrians passing through.
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, supported by Justice Samuel Alito, argued that these restrictions violate the Constitution and should have been struck down. He pointed out that Hill v. Colorado, the 2000 decision that upheld similar laws, is in direct conflict with free speech protections and should have been overturned.
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
“The court today declines an invitation to set the record straight on Hill’s defunct status,” Thomas wrote in his dissent. He added that by failing to act, the Supreme Court is leaving constitutional rights “hanging in the balance” while lower courts continue to enforce flawed legal precedent.
With the ruling, pro-life activists remain unable to counsel women or offer pro-life materials outside clinics in cities with buffer zone laws. Pro-life groups argue that these laws unfairly target their movement while allowing pro-abortion activists to continue demonstrating near clinics without restriction.
