Hill v. Colorado case brief summary
530 U.S. 703 (2000)
CASE FACTS
Petitioners sought an injunction against the enforcement of Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-9-122(3)(1999), which made unlawful within 100 feet of a health care facility's entrance, any person knowingly approaching within eight feet of another person, without that person's consent, to pass a leaflet or handbill to, display a sign to, or engage in oral protest, education, or counseling with such other person. The trial court granted summary judgment for respondent, holding that Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-9-122(3) (1999) was not unconstitutional. Petitioners appealed and the appellate court affirmed. Petitioners appealed, and the state supreme court affirmed. Petitioners sought a writ of certiorari, claiming that Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-9-122(3)(1999) was an unconstitutionally invalid time, place, and manner restriction.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
Judgment affirmed because the state statute creating a bubble zone in which free speech was restricted around persons approaching health care facilities was a narrowly tailored, content neutral, valid time, place, and manner restriction, serving significant and legitimate governmental interests of protecting the public from confrontational and harassing conduct.
530 U.S. 703 (2000)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Petitioners sought a writ of
certiorari, appealing the judgment of the Supreme Court of Colorado
which affirmed the appellate court's affirmance of the trial court's
grant of summary judgment for respondent state in petitioners' action
praying for a declaration that Colo. Rev. Stat. §
18-9-122(3) (1999) was facially invalid and seeking an
injunction against its enforcement.CASE FACTS
Petitioners sought an injunction against the enforcement of Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-9-122(3)(1999), which made unlawful within 100 feet of a health care facility's entrance, any person knowingly approaching within eight feet of another person, without that person's consent, to pass a leaflet or handbill to, display a sign to, or engage in oral protest, education, or counseling with such other person. The trial court granted summary judgment for respondent, holding that Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-9-122(3) (1999) was not unconstitutional. Petitioners appealed and the appellate court affirmed. Petitioners appealed, and the state supreme court affirmed. Petitioners sought a writ of certiorari, claiming that Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-9-122(3)(1999) was an unconstitutionally invalid time, place, and manner restriction.
DISCUSSION
- The court affirmed, holding that the statute was a narrowly tailored, content neutral, valid time, place, and manner restriction, serving significant and legitimate governmental interests of protecting the public from confrontational and harassing conduct within regulated areas.
CONCLUSION
Judgment affirmed because the state statute creating a bubble zone in which free speech was restricted around persons approaching health care facilities was a narrowly tailored, content neutral, valid time, place, and manner restriction, serving significant and legitimate governmental interests of protecting the public from confrontational and harassing conduct.
No comments:
Post a Comment