Inc. Madsen v. Women's Health Center - Stevens Dissents In Part

Justice Stevens dissented on the issue of the level of scrutiny to be applied to injunctions and on the majority disposition of the 300-foot buffer zone around the clinic. On the scrutiny issue, he stated that injunctions should be treated more leniently than legislation. The same regulation when enacted as statute might well be unconstitutional, but injunctions apply "solely to [specific parties] who, by engaging in illegal conduct, have been judicially deprived of some liberty--the normal consequence of illegal activity." Souter also rejected the majority finding regarding the 300-foot buffer zone, declaring that it proscribed conduct, not speech, noting that the trial judge found this necessary to protect clinic patients from stalking and shadowing by protesters.