The Supreme Court has declined to review laws that restrict pro-life speech near abortion clinics, a decision that drew strong criticism from Justice Clarence Thomas. The ruling leaves in place lower court decisions that upheld buffer zones preventing pro-life activists from offering information or counseling to women entering the facilities.
At the center of the dispute were ordinances in Carbondale, Illinois, and Englewood, New Jersey. The Illinois law, which was repealed in 2024, had prevented activists from approaching within 100 feet of a clinic’s entrance without permission. Englewood’s ordinance, which remains in effect, prohibits individuals from coming within eight feet of an abortion facility unless they are patients, staff, or simply passing by.
BREAKING: Justice Clarence Thomas criticized the Supreme Court for refusing to take an important case about a city that is banning pro-life free speech.
"Our refusal to provide clarity is an abdication of our judicial duty."https://t.co/q4wWch5g39 pic.twitter.com/k1LfuA1N5m
— LifeNews.com (@LifeNewsHQ) February 24, 2025
Thomas, joined in dissent by Justice Samuel Alito, called the court’s refusal to hear the cases a failure to uphold free speech rights. He specifically criticized the 2000 ruling in Hill v. Colorado, which first upheld buffer zones, stating that the decision contradicts decades of First Amendment precedent and should have been overturned.
Best laugh on the bench.
“One thing I’d say in response to the media, I will absolutely leave the court when I do my job as poorly as you do yours.” — Justice Clarence Thomas pic.twitter.com/5W1oZ0DRlb
— Terri Green (@TerriGreenUSA) February 22, 2025
“Hill has been seriously undermined, if not completely eroded,” Thomas wrote. He pointed out that pro-life counselors had been forced to stand in areas where meaningful conversations with women seeking alternatives to abortion were impossible.
The Supreme Court’s decision allows local governments to continue enforcing similar restrictions, limiting the ability of pro-life activists to engage with women outside abortion clinics. Pro-life groups argue that these laws unfairly silence their side of the debate while allowing abortion supporters to assemble freely in the same areas.
