McCullen v. Coakley
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 567
1st Cir.2013Background
- Massachusetts amended a 2007 abortion clinic buffer-zone law to 35 feet around entrances; prior facial and as-applied challenges were litigated in McGuire I, McGuire II, McCullen I, II, III with mixed outcomes; the Supreme Court denied certiorari after McCullen I; this case reconsiders the as-applied challenge at three clinics and the district court’s judgment on the pleadings.
- The Act prohibits entering or staying within a buffer zone around RHCF entrances, with four exemptions for facility personnel, law enforcement, and others using the sidewalk to reach a destination.
- The specific sites are (1) Boston clinic on Commonwealth Avenue with a public sidewalk; (2) Worcester clinic with private pathways and a mix of public and private access; (3) Springfield clinic in a multi-tenant complex with some driveways designated as buffer zones.
- Plaintiffs conduct sidewalk counseling, distribution of literature, praying, and expressive demonstrations outside the clinics; they claim these activities are impeded by the buffer zones and reduce effectiveness.
- District court treated facial validity as law-of-the-case and granted judgment on the pleadings for several counts; the as-applied challenge proceeded to trial but was subsequently decided in favor of the defendants.
- The court emphasizes the record shows viable alternative channels of communication at all sites, consistent with time-place-manner doctrine; it also addresses leave-to-amend and various doctrinal points from prior McCullen decisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Law-of-the-case governs re-litigation of facial validity | McCullen seeks to revisit McCullen I in light of new precedents | Law-of-the-case bars re-litigation of facial validity | Law-of-the-case applies; facial challenge remains controlled by McCullen I. |
| As-applied challenge viability given alternative channels | As-applied restrictions destroy effective communication | Adequate alternative channels remain at all sites | Act valid as applied; adequate alternatives exist. |
| Claim of viewpoint discrimination | Exempt clinic employees discriminate in favor of opponents | No state action or viewpoint bias proven; conduct by private actors | No plausible viewpoint-discrimination claim; state action required. |
| Overbreadth and as-applied limitations | Act is overbroad in particular locations | Statute's breadth is a virtue; no substantial overbreadth shown | Overbreadth claim fails; McCullen I controls. |
| Leave to amend to challenge the Attorney General's letter | Letter should be subject to challenge | Denial appropriate for undue delay | District court did not abuse discretion; leave to amend denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hill v. Colorado, 401 U.S. 430 (2000) (upheld buffer zones as valid time-place-manner regulation near clinics)
- Madsen v. Women's Health Ctr., Inc., 512 U.S. 753 (1994) (abortion clinic buffer zones upheld as constitutional)
- Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S. Ct. 876 (2010) (limits on corporate political speech within First Amendment framework)
- Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., 131 S. Ct. 2653 (2011) (content-based restriction analysis; distinction from this case)
- United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968) (central premise that asymmetrical regulation may be valid when content-neutral)
- Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (1989) (time-place-manner framework for regulation in public forums)
- City of Ladue v. Gilleo, 512 U.S. 43 (1994) (context of signs; illustrates siting-specific alternative channels)
- McCullen v. Coakley, 571 F.3d 167 (2009) (earlier holding that the Act is content- and speaker-neutral)