Vitagliano v. County of Westchester, 71 F.4th 130

Westchester County enacted the Reproductive Health Care Facilities Access Act in June 2022, which makes it unlawful to knowingly approach within eight feet of another person (without consent) to pass material, display a sign, or engage in oral protest, education, or counseling within 100 feet of a reproductive health facility (misdemeanor penalties plus civil remedies).
Section 425.31(i) (the "bubble zone") is the provision challenged; the Act also creates private civil actions and broader prohibitions against obstruction, harassment, and interference.
Plaintiff Debra Vitagliano is a Westchester resident and trained pro‑life volunteer who says she now intends to engage in sidewalk counseling (approaching women entering an abortion clinic, speaking and handing out pamphlets) but will not do so because of the bubble‑zone law.
Vitagliano sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming the law is a content‑based restriction that fails First Amendment scrutiny. The district court dismissed for lack of Article III standing and, alternatively, on the merits as controlled by Hill v. Colorado.
The Second Circuit reversed the standing dismissal (finding Vitagliano pleaded a credible threat of enforcement) but affirmed dismissal on the merits, holding Hill is controlling and the bubble‑zone survives intermediate scrutiny.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Article III standing for pre‑enforcement challenge	Vitagliano contends she has concrete, imminent injury: she trained, intends to counsel outside the clinic, and fears prosecution under the Act.	County argued she lacked standing because she never previously engaged in sidewalk counseling and alleged no concrete plans or specific threat of enforcement.	Court: Vitagliano has standing — she alleged an intention to engage in protected conduct, that conduct is arguably proscribed, and there is a credible threat of enforcement of a recently enacted local law.
First Amendment validity of bubble‑zone under Hill	Vitagliano argued Hill was wrongly decided and the County's law is content‑based and not narrowly tailored.	County argued Hill is directly on point; Westchester's law is materially identical and thus constitutional under intermediate T/P/M scrutiny.	Court: Affirmed on the merits — Hill controls; the law is content‑neutral and survives intermediate scrutiny.

Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703 (2000) (upheld substantially similar 8‑foot/100‑foot bubble‑zone as a content‑neutral time, place, and manner regulation)
Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U.S. 149 (2014) (pre‑enforcement standing framework for challenges to criminal statutes)
Picard v. Magliano, 42 F.4th 89 (2d Cir. 2022) (Second Circuit application of pre‑enforcement standing principles)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (requirements for injury‑in‑fact, causation, redressability)
Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U.S. 398 (2013) (imminence standard for threatened future injury)
McCullen v. Coakley, 573 U.S. 464 (2014) (sidewalks as traditional public fora; speech protections for leafleting and oral communication)
Cayuga Nation v. Tanner, 824 F.3d 321 (2d Cir. 2016) (pre‑enforcement standing; credible‑threat standard)
Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203 (1997) (court of appeals must follow directly controlling Supreme Court precedent)