Veronica Price v. City of Chicago
915 F.3d 1107
7th Cir.2019Background
- Four pro-life "sidewalk counselors" regularly approached persons entering Chicago abortion clinics to hand out literature and engage in close, face-to-face conversations.
- In 2009 Chicago adopted an ordinance forbidding any person from approaching within eight feet of another person within 50 feet of a healthcare facility entrance for the purpose of leafletting, counseling, protesting, or educating.
- Plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging (1) facial and as-applied First Amendment violations, (2) vagueness, (3) selective enforcement (Equal Protection), and (4) state constitutional violations.
- The district court dismissed the facial First Amendment and vagueness claims at Rule 12(b)(6) but allowed as-applied, selective-enforcement, and state claims to proceed; the remaining claims settled and only the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal was appealed.
- The ordinance is materially identical to the Colorado statute upheld in Hill v. Colorado except Chicago’s rule applies within a 50-foot radius (Hill's radius was 100 feet).
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal, holding Hill controls despite doctrinal tension with later Supreme Court decisions (McCullen, Reed) and noting that only the Supreme Court may overrule Hill.
Issues and Key Cases Cited
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ordinance is a content-based regulation requiring strict scrutiny | The law criminalizes approaching for the purpose of speaking and thus is content-based (targets speech by purpose/function) | The law is content-neutral time/place/manner regulation like Colorado’s statute in Hill | Court: Hill controls; ordinance treated as content-neutral, so strict scrutiny not applied |
| Whether the ordinance fails intermediate scrutiny (narrow tailoring) | Even if content-neutral, the bubble zone is not narrowly tailored under McCullen because less speech-restrictive alternatives exist | The ordinance serves significant interests (access, safety, protecting unwilling listeners) and is narrowly tailored; it is even narrower than Hill’s statute | Court: Under Hill’s reasoning, the ordinance is narrowly tailored; facial challenge dismissed |
| Whether intervening cases (McCullen, Reed) overrule or negate Hill | Hill is undermined by Reed and McCullen, which clarified content-neutrality and narrow-tailoring tests; plaintiffs say Hill should not bind the court | Defendant: Hill remains binding precedent until the Supreme Court says otherwise | Court: Although Reed and McCullen erode Hill, Hill remains binding; only SCOTUS may overrule it |
| Vagueness of the ordinance | Terms like "protest," "counseling," and "education" are imprecise and criminalize pure speech | Hill rejected a similar vagueness challenge to Colorado’s statute | Court: Vagueness claim dismissed under Hill |
Key Cases Cited
- Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703 (upheld an 8-foot floating bubble zone as content-neutral and narrowly tailored)
- McCullen v. Coakley, 134 S. Ct. 2518 (invalidated a fixed 35-foot buffer zone; emphasized rigorous, fact-intensive narrow-tailoring analysis)
- Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 135 S. Ct. 2218 (clarified content-based inquiry; facially content-based laws require strict scrutiny)
- Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of W. N.Y., 519 U.S. 357 (invalidated a floating 15-foot approach restriction in injunction; protected leaflet distribution and conversational distance)
- Madsen v. Women’s Health Center, 512 U.S. 753 (upheld some fixed buffer restrictions in injunctive context but struck a floating no-approach provision)
- Brown v. City of Pittsburgh, 586 F.3d 263 (3d Cir. upheld an 8-foot floating bubble zone under Hill without an evidentiary showing)
- Bruni v. City of Pittsburgh, 824 F.3d 353 (3d Cir. later required case-specific narrow-tailoring analysis in light of McCullen for a fixed 15-foot buffer)