McCullen v. Coakley
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25731
D. Mass.2012Background
- Act creates a 35-foot buffer around RHCF entrances; apply to three MA clinics (Boston, Worcester, Springfield) and contains time/place/manner restrictions on pro-life speech.
- Plaintiffs are Massachusetts residents who routinely counsel pro-life outside RHCFs; Defendants include MA AG and several district attorneys enforcing the Act.
- Prior rulings upheld the Act facially as content-neutral time/place/manner restriction under intermediate scrutiny.
- This as-applied challenge asks whether the Act leaves adequate alternative channels of communication at the three clinics.
- Court previously upheld facial validity; now examines three clinics to determine if alternatives remain adequate.
- Court concludes the Act as applied leaves ample alternative avenues for Plaintiffs’ speech at all three clinics.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Act, as applied, preserves adequate alternative channels | McCullen argues alternatives are inadequate | Massachusetts shows non-absolute alternatives exist | Yes; adequate alternatives remain |
| Whether state action is shown to violate the First Amendment | Actions of clinic escorts negate state action theory | State action shown through enforcement of buffer zones | State action proven; not a basis to invalidate the Act as applied |
| Whether the Springfield and Worcester locations undermine adequacy of alternatives | Barriers in multipurpose/private property settings hamper speech | Non-state barriers do not negate adequacy of alternatives | Adequate alternatives still exist at both locations |
| Whether the Court should revisit McGuire/McGuire II framework for state action | Ninth Circuit policy on escorts should influence analysis | First Circuit applies McGuire II state-action standard | Bound by First Circuit; escorts not treated as state action here |
Key Cases Cited
- Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703 (2000) (upholds state buffer zone as valid time/place/manner restriction)
- Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York, 519 U.S. 357 (1997) (application to multiple clinics within a larger complex)
- Madsen v. Women’s Health Center, Inc., 512 U.S. 753 (1994) (upheld buffer-zone regulation balancing safety and speech)
- McCullen v. Coakley, 571 F.3d 167 (1st Cir. 2009) (content-neutral regulation upheld on facial challenge")
- McCullen v. Coakley, 573 F.Supp.2d 382 (D. Mass. 2008) (district court decision upholding Act facially)
- McGuire v. Reilly, 386 F.3d 45 (1st Cir. 2004) (state-action requirement for enforcement by public authorities)