Saint John's Church in the Wilderness v. Scott, 2012 Colo. App. LEXIS 639

Appeal of remand order in St. John's in the Wilderness v. Scott; no new evidence on remand; injunction restrictions around buffer zones modified and affirmed.
Plaintiffs are St. John's Cathedral Church in the Wilderness and parishioners Thompson and Berberich; defendants Seott and Powell demonstrated across the street during Palm Sunday with graphic posters opposed to abortion and homosexuality.
Trial court found Scott's loud shouting interfered with services; posters caused distress to attendees and frightened children; 85–100 parishioners declined to participate in a second outdoor service.
Original injunction prohibited entry onto church premises at all times, time-and-space restrictions around worship, and prohibited certain conduct including shouting and signage; later remand narrowed prohibitions and added new content restrictions.
Remand court deleted the broad entry prohibition and added two new prohibitions: (a) noise/conduct reasonably disturbing worship and (b) large posters with gruesome images viewable by children under 12 during services and related events in buffer zones.
St. John's I held that mere presence on Church property did not show irreparable harm; further findings needed to determine speech restrictions' impact; this opinion reviews compliance with remand and legality of new prohibitions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Buffer-zone restrictions burden no more speech than necessary	St. John's argues buffer zones are appropriately tailored to protect worship while allowing speech.	Defendants contend the scale of restrictions burden protected speech beyond necessity.	Court declined to address this issue due to lack of argument in opening brief.
Compliance with remand instructions on church entry	St. John's argued that entering the Church on days with prohibited conduct could undo injunction goals.	Defendants contended trial court complied with remand by narrowing entry restrictions.	Court held remand compliance proper; removal of 'at all times' entry and inclusion of 'on days they engage in prohibited conduct' was within court's discretion.
Prohibition on speech causing parishioners to become physically upset	Restriction necessary to protect worship and safety.	Speech upset prohibition intrudes on First Amendment rights.	This portion vacated as overbroad; obstruction protections already covered by other injunction terms.
Gruesome-images prohibition as content-based and narrowly tailored	Graphic posters threaten children and justify content-based restriction.	First Amendment requires strict scrutiny; balance with children’s protection.	Prohibition deemed content-based but narrowly tailored; upheld under strict scrutiny as compelling to protect children.

Snyder v. Phelps, 131 S. Ct. 1207 (2011) (public-issue speech protected; not always actionable despite offense)
Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Ass'n, 131 S. Ct. 2729 (2011) (distinguishes obscenity from protected speech; minors' protection context)
Madsen v. Women's Health Center, Inc., 512 U.S. 753 (1994) (injunctions must be narrowly tailored to serve substantial interest)
Perry Educ. Ass'n v. Perry Local Educators' Ass'n, 460 U.S. 37 (1983) (content-neutral restrictions must be narrowly tailored)
Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U.S. 41 (1986) (secondary effects doctrine; tailoring of restrictions)
Boos v. Barry, 485 U.S. 312 (1988) (content-based stimulus when restriction targets message content)
Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S. 123 (1992) (content neutrality and tailoring considerations in speech regulation)
Hill v. Thomas, 973 P.2d 1246 (Colo. 1999) (reconciling free speech with other rights in specific contexts)