Sisters for Life, Inc. v. Louisville-Jefferson Cnty., KY Metro. Gov't, 56 F.4th 400

Plaintiffs (Sisters for Life, individual sidewalk counselors, Kentucky Right to Life) engage in "sidewalk counseling" to persuade women entering EMW Women’s Surgical Center in Louisville not to have abortions.
Louisville-Jefferson County ordinance §132.09 prohibits obstructing entry to healthcare facilities and separately bars non-exempt persons from entering or remaining in a painted 10-foot buffer zone at any healthcare facility entrance during business hours.
The ordinance exempts facility entrants/leavers, people passing to other destinations, municipal agents, and facility employees/agents; plaintiffs allege selective enforcement (e.g., escorts are not treated as violators).
Plaintiffs sued asserting First Amendment violations and sought a preliminary injunction; the district court denied relief.
The Sixth Circuit found the buffer-zone provision likely unconstitutional under McCullen v. Coakley because it is not narrowly tailored: it applies to all healthcare facilities though problems are concentrated at EMW and the County failed to seriously pursue less-restrictive alternatives (existing obstruction law, targeted injunctions, use of clinic video, patrols, or federal FOCA-type measures).
The court preliminarily enjoined enforcement of §132.09(B)(2) and remanded, noting evidence of potential viewpoint-discriminatory enforcement but deciding narrow-tailoring failure sufficed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the buffer-zone ordinance is content-based	County enforces it to silence pro-life sidewalk counseling; evidence shows unequal enforcement (escorts exempt)	Ordinance is content-neutral time/place regulation covering all medical facilities	Court did not definitively rule content-based; noted evidence of selective enforcement but decided result on narrow tailoring grounds
Whether a content-neutral 10-foot fixed buffer zone is narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest	Ordinance burdens close, personal conversations and literature distribution and is broader than necessary; County failed to use less-intrusive means	Buffer zone is small and facilitates unimpeded access and public safety across healthcare facilities	Not narrowly tailored: applies to all healthcare facilities despite record showing problems mainly at EMW and County failed to seriously use less-intrusive tools (obstruction statute, video evidence, targeted injunctions, patrols)
Whether plaintiffs merit preliminary injunctive relief	Enforcement would cause irreparable First Amendment harm; equities/public interest favor injunction	Ordinance promotes safety and access; injunction would hamper those interests	Preliminary injunction appropriate: irreparable harm shown; equities and public interest do not overcome First Amendment violation

McCullen v. Coakley, 573 U.S. 464 (2014) (invalidated fixed buffer-zone outside abortion clinics for failing narrow-tailoring requirement)
Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (1989) (time, place, manner restrictions must be narrowly tailored to serve significant government interest)
United States v. Grace, 461 U.S. 171 (1983) (content-based restrictions trigger strict scrutiny)
Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886) (unequal enforcement can render a regulation content- or viewpoint-based)
Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703 (2000) (upheld a floating "bubble" restriction in the context of unwanted communication at healthcare facilities)
Am. for Prosperity Found. v. Bonta, 141 S. Ct. 2373 (2021) (narrow-tailoring inquiry focuses on whether a law burdens substantially more speech than necessary)
Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (preliminary injunction standards)
Roman Catholic Diocese v. Cuomo, 141 S. Ct. 63 (2020) (loss of First Amendment rights constitutes irreparable harm)
Hoye v. City of Oakland, 653 F.3d 835 (9th Cir. 2011) (selective enforcement of speech restrictions can be unconstitutional)
Reynolds v. Middleton, 779 F.3d 222 (4th Cir. 2015) (invalidating overbroad restrictions in clinic-access context)