Inc. Madsen v. Women's Health Center

Scalia dissented from all parts of the majority opinion upholding the injunction. He also disagreed regarding the level of scrutiny to be applied to all such restrictions. All should be subjected to strict scrutiny because of the risk of suppression of unpopular points of view. His rejection of the injunction rested largely on his rejection of the trial court's finding of facts. This rejection was largely based on a videotape submitted by the respondents in which he found no egregious violation, in fact no violation, of the original injunction. In Scalia's opinion, the trial court judge found without evidence that protesters were blocking access to the clinic; the videotape showed a slowing of traffic and a delay of cars entering the parking lot that was the normal, inevitable result of congestion when a crowd gathers, not tortious behavior on the part of respondents. Since there was no violation of the original injunction, it was unnecessary to extend it further. He did not address the issue of violence in the antiabortion movement or the petitioners' acceptance of the trial court's finding of facts.