Inc. Madsen v. Women's Health Center

The mixed verdict could be viewed as a victory for either side, although petitioners prevailed on most parts of their claim.

In 1992 the operators of the Aware Woman Center for Choice, a facility that conducted abortion counseling and performed abortions at their clinic in Melbourne, Florida, were subjected to daily picketing and confrontation of their patients by Operation Rescue, a group opposed to abortion. A Florida state court issued an injunction prohibiting the protesters from (1) "physically abusing" persons entering or leaving the clinic; (2) entering the clinic; and (3) obstructing access to or exit from the clinic. Six months after the injunction was issued, the clinic operators claimed that access to the clinic was still being obstructed and that the activities of the protesters, which included singing, the use of bullhorns, the carrying of placards, and approaching those entering or leaving the clinic, had a physically harmful effect on patients of the clinic. Protesters also picketed in front of the homes of those who worked at the clinic.

In response the Court amended the original injunction, increasing the limits on the activities of the protesters. The amended injunction prohibited the protesters from (1) entering the clinic or clinic property; (2) "blocking, impeding, inhibiting, . . . or obstructing or interfering" with access to or exit from the clinic; (3) coming within 36 feet of the property line of the clinic; (4) using sound amplification equipment, including bullhorns, and making other loud noises such as singing or yelling from 7:30 a.m. to noon Monday through Saturday; and from displaying images "observable to . . . those inside the clinic"; (5) approaching any person going to the clinic while within 300 feet of the clinic, unless "such person indicates a desire to communicate"; persons not wishing to communicate may not be threatened or harassed; (6) demonstrating within 300 feet of the residences of clinic staff; this also applied to "those acting in concert" with the demonstrators; (7) harassing of persons entering or leaving the clinic or the residences of clinic staff; (8) harassing clinic staff; (9) inciting others to commit any of the prohibited acts.

Different members of the protest group appealed in two separate actions, one to the Florida Supreme Court and to the U.S. District Court of Appeals. The court of appeals issued a ruling that the injunction was unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds, as an "actual prohibition of speech" to prevent a "potential hindrance" of the exercise of abortion rights. Shortly after, the Florida Supreme Court held the injunction to be constitutional because it was "content-neutral" and served a legitimate government interest. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the two conflicting decisions.