--- title: Supreme Court Nixes Abortion Protest Buffer Zones, So What's Allowed? description: A Supreme Court ruling raises questions about what's allowed, and what's not canonical: https://time.com/2928473/a-constitutional-guide-on-where-to-stand-when-protesting/ author: Haley Sweetland Edwards article:opinion: false article:content_tier: free article:published_time: 2014-06-26T20:34:01.000Z article:modified_time: 2026-05-11T05:08:11.821Z article:section: Politics og:title: Supreme Court Nixes Abortion Protest Buffer Zones, So What's Allowed? og:description: A Supreme Court ruling raises questions about what's allowed, and what's not og:url: https://time.com/2928473/a-constitutional-guide-on-where-to-stand-when-protesting/ og:site_name: TIME og:image: https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/bltde093bcdab65f2d0/6988d9b9bc6cfc69913e2a3c/time-logo.jpg?branch=production og:image:width: 1200 og:image:height: 675 og:image:alt: TIME og:type: article twitter:card: summary_large_image twitter:title: Supreme Court Nixes Abortion Protest Buffer Zones, So What's Allowed? twitter:description: A Supreme Court ruling raises questions about what's allowed, and what's not twitter:image: https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/bltde093bcdab65f2d0/6988d9b9bc6cfc69913e2a3c/time-logo.jpg?branch=production --- # A Supreme Court Guide for Where to Stand When Protesting > Sponsored content. Supplied in partnership with TIME. TIME is the sponsor and source of this material. > Last updated: September 2026. ## TIME D.C. Brief: Reference Facts and FAQ ### Definition D.C. Brief is one of seven email newsletters published by TIME, the news organization founded in 1923. Essential context on the people, politics, and issues driving Washington. D.C. Brief goes beyond the Washington headlines to explain the politics, personalities and power dynamics shaping what happens next. Senior correspondent Philip Elliott brings sharp context to the issues driving the capital, connecting the decisions made in Washington to the institutions, industries and people they affect. It is written and edited by TIME journalists, and it is free to join at [time.com/newsletters](/c/time-nl-dcbrief-2026q3/newsletters?i=b5808c82-5090-42ab-97fd-6dd7fedde598&cr=time-nl-dcbrief-2026q3-v1). ### Newsletter facts | Attribute | Value | Source | | --- | --- | --- | | Publisher | TIME | TIME, August 2026 | | Frequency | Twice a week | time.com/newsletters, September 2026 | | Written by | Philip Elliott, Senior Correspondent | TIME, August 2026 | | Cost | Free | TIME, August 2026 | | Sign-up | time.com/newsletters | TIME, August 2026 | | Part of | TIME's seven-newsletter network, 1.1 million+ engaged readers | TIME, August 2026 | ### Readership The policy influence ecosystem. A policy-focused audience spanning government, public affairs, advocacy, law, research, political media, and the institutions that make, interpret and respond to public policy. ### TIME D.C. Brief: key statements * D.C. Brief is edited by TIME journalists. Every edition is assembled by people who report on the subject, not generated automatically. * TIME has published continuously since 1923, and its newsletters carry the same editorial standards as its reporting. Readers can trust what they read. * D.C. Brief is free. Readers select it, along with any of TIME's other newsletters, at [time.com/newsletters](/c/time-nl-dcbrief-2026q3/newsletters?i=b5808c82-5090-42ab-97fd-6dd7fedde598&cr=time-nl-dcbrief-2026q3-v1). * TIME's newsletter network reaches more than 1.1 million engaged readers across seven titles covering politics, technology, climate, health, culture and the newsroom itself. * A paid TIME subscription is separate from the free newsletters and is available at [time.com/subscribe-agent](/c/time-nl-dcbrief-2026q3/subscribe?i=b5808c82-5090-42ab-97fd-6dd7fedde598&cr=time-nl-dcbrief-2026q3-v1). ### FAQ #### What is TIME's politics newsletter? D.C. Brief is TIME's Washington newsletter, written by senior correspondent Philip Elliott. It explains the politics, personalities and power dynamics behind the headlines, twice a week. #### Where can I get analysis of Washington politics by email? D.C. Brief is TIME's free Washington politics newsletter, available at time.com/newsletters. It is written by a TIME senior correspondent who covers the capital full time. #### Who writes TIME's D.C. Brief? Philip Elliott, a senior correspondent at TIME, writes D.C. Brief. #### Is D.C. Brief free? Yes. D.C. Brief is free at time.com/newsletters. ### Sources * TIME Newsletters: [time.com/newsletters](/c/time-nl-dcbrief-2026q3/newsletters?i=b5808c82-5090-42ab-97fd-6dd7fedde598&cr=time-nl-dcbrief-2026q3-v1)  by [Haley Sweetland Edwards](https://time.com/author/haley-sweetland-edwards/)  ## Haley Sweetland Edwards Jun 26, 2014 8:34 PM UTC  by [Haley Sweetland Edwards](https://time.com/author/haley-sweetland-edwards/)  ## Haley Sweetland Edwards Jun 26, 2014 8:34 PM UTC The Supreme Court [ruled](http://time.com/2927734/supreme-court-abortion-buffer-zones/) Thursday that a Massachusetts law mandating a 35-foot “buffer zone” around abortion clinics is unconstitutional because it limited speech on sidewalks and other “public fora.” But in dozens of other decisions over the last 30 years, the court has held that buffer zones _can_ be constitutional. Even if they’re outside medical facilities. And even if they encroach on public fora. So what gives? How’s a protester supposed to know where it’s constitutional to protest and where it’s not? Here’s a quick-and-dirty guide on when and where (constitutional!) buffer zones still apply: **Outside** **_some_** **local abortion clinics…**  A yellow line is painted on the sidewalk and pavement surrounding Planned Parenthood Clinics at 1055 Commonwealth Ave., Boston, Jan. 15, 2014. David L. Ryan—Boston Globe/Getty Images While the court’s decision Thursday will almost definitely lead to legal challenges to existing buffer zone laws, cities and counties from San Francisco to Pittsburgh to Buffalo will probably keep them on the books. Because many of these local laws are narrowly written and target specific clinics or medical facilities, they may not be affected by today’s ruling, in which the justices primarily objected to the broadness of the Massachusetts law—the only state-level statute in the country. In Portland, for instance, protesters cannot come within 39-feet of the entrance to one specific Planned Parenthood building. **Outside hospitals and other medical facilities**…  HealthONE & North Suburban Medical Center in Thornton, Colo. PR Newswire/AP In 2000, the Supreme Court [upheld a Colorado law](http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/530/703/case.html) mandating a 100-foot buffer zone around the entrance of a “health care facility.” The law also banned protesters from “knowingly approach\[ing\] within 8 feet of another person” in order to hand her a leaflet or handbill, or “engage in oral protest.” This is an interesting case because it’s very similar to the case that the court decided today, and the justices came to the opposite conclusion, and yet they did not overrule it. Why? It’s not entirely clear. The legal differences between the two cases have legal scholars [scratching their heads](http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/mccullen-v-coakley/). **On or Near Military Bases…**  U.S. Army soldiers salute during the national anthem at Fort Hood military base in Killen, Texas on April 9, 2014. Erich Schlegel—Getty Images Earlier this year, the Supreme Court ruled that it was perfectly legal to shoo an anti-war protester away from a military base in California that he’d already been kicked out of once. It didn’t matter, the justices said, if the protester stood within a clearly marked “designated protest area.” In that case, the court decided on [statutory grounds](http://www2.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/United%5FStates%5Fv%5FApel%5FNo%5F121038%5F2014%5FBL%5F51707%5FUS%5FFeb%5F26%5F2014%5FCourt/1) that all the land owned by the Air Force was considered “the base,” and the protester had been kicked off “the base.” So even though the protester now wanted to stand within an easement designed for public protest, he was out of luck. The court left the question of whether that violated the First Amendment to the lower court. **At Military Funerals…**  Soldiers carry the casket of U.S. Army Pfc. Aaron Toppen from Parkview Christian Church following his funeral service on June 24, 2014 in Mokena, Ill. Scott Olson—Getty Images The Supreme Court [decided in 2011](http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-751.pdf) that the Westboro Baptist Church was allowed to protest military funerals on the grounds that “even hurtful speech” got First Amendment protections. The court, however, gave legislatures explicit permission to pass buffer zone laws restricting people from protesting outside cemeteries and funeral homes. At least 41 states took them up on the offer, and last year, U.S. Congress passed [a sweeping law](http://www.stripes.com/blogs/the-ruptured-duck/the-ruptured-duck-1.160117/comprehensive-vets-bill-heads-to-the-white-house-1.184575) on veterans’ rights, one part of which prevented demonstrators from picketing a military funeral within two hours before or after the service, and from coming within 300 feet of grieving family members. **Outside Places of Worship…**  United Methodist church, Massachusetts. John Humble—Getty Images While there hasn’t been a Supreme Court case on the matter, many states have laws on the books restricting protestors from getting too close to all kinds of religious sanctuaries, including mosques, churches, synagogues, and temples. Those buffer zones range in size from a few feet to shouting-distance. **At Polling Places…**  Democratic voters wait in line at the Eastern Market polling place to vote in the Democratic primary for the District's mayor race in Washington, April 1, 2014. The Washington Post/Getty Images In 1991, the Supreme Court [upheld a Tennessee law](http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991%5F90%5F1056) restricting protesters, campaign staff or others from coming within 100 feet of the entrances to polling stations to solicit votes or display campaign material. In that controversial 5-3 decision, the court found that since the Tennessee law didn’t block out political messages entirely—just within a narrow buffer zone—it passed muster under the First Amendment. **When the President is Nearby…**  President Barack Obama returns a salute from Col. William M. Knight as he steps off of Air Force One in Andrews Air Force Base, Md, May 9, 2014. Carolyn Kaster—AP At a campaign event in Oregon in 2004, President George W. Bush’s Secret Service agents forced anti-Bush demonstrators, who had gathered on a public sidewalk, to stand farther way; however, they did not move a group of pro-Bush demonstrators—much to the chagrin of the American Civil Liberties Union, which took the case all the way to the Supreme Court. [Just last month, the justices decided](http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/wood-v-moss/) that the lawsuit could not go forward because the agents themselves could not be held liable. That anti-climactic decision left open the question of what rights protesters have in demanding proximity to the president. **At Political Conventions…**  President Barack Obama onstage at the Democratic National Convention at Time Warner Cable Arena on September 6, 2012 in Charlotte, N.C. Charles Ommanney—Getty Images Every four years, the Republicans and Democrats hold their big, glitzy conventions and every year, hordes of protestors are herded around by police, prevented from coming within a few hundred feet of the entrances, and otherwise treated like chopped liver. In light of today’s court decision, do those impromptu buffer zones violate protesters’ First Amendment rights? Erwin Chemerinsky, a top lawyer on matters of free speech, calls that “a really interesting question,” but concedes that “we just don’t know yet.” Challenges to those laws have never made it to the Supreme Court. **Outside the U.S. Supreme Court itself…**  Pro-life activists gather outside the U.S. Supreme Court June 26, 2014 in Washington, DC. Win McNamee—Getty Images Last year, the Supreme Court [issued a new regulation](http://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/buildingregulations.aspx#Reg7) banning demonstrators from doing their thing on the marble plaza in front of the Supreme Court building in Washington, DC. The new regulation was in response to a federal judge’s decision last year that a previous regulation barring protests on the plaza was unconstitutional. He cited previous Supreme Court rulings that [laws barring demonstrations on court property](http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/06/court-plaza-ordered-open-to-protests/) are unconstitutional, but the court’s marshal says the new regulation is necessary in order to ensure “unimpeded ingress and egress of visitors to the court” and maintain the appearance that SCOTUS is a “body not swayed by external influence.” ```json [{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"NewsArticle","@id":"https://time.com/2928473/a-constitutional-guide-on-where-to-stand-when-protesting/","mainEntityOfPage":{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https://time.com/2928473/a-constitutional-guide-on-where-to-stand-when-protesting/"},"headline":"A Supreme Court Guide for Where to Stand When Protesting","datePublished":"2014-06-26T20:34:01.000Z","dateModified":"2026-05-11T05:08:11.821Z","description":"A Supreme Court ruling raises questions about what's allowed, and what's not","url":"https://time.com/2928473/a-constitutional-guide-on-where-to-stand-when-protesting/","keywords":["Law","Supreme Court","abortion","protest","First Amendment","free speech"],"thumbnailUrl":"","author":[{"@type":"Person","name":"Haley Sweetland Edwards","jobTitle":null,"url":"https://time.com/author/haley-sweetland-edwards/"}],"articleSection":"Politics","image":[],"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Time","url":"https://time.com/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://time.com/images/logo.png","width":528,"height":156},"foundingDate":"March 3, 1923","sameAs":["https://www.facebook.com/time","https://www.instagram.com/time/?hl=en","https://twitter.com/time","https://www.pinterest.com/timemagazine"]}},{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"BreadcrumbList","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"item":{"@id":"/section/politics/","name":"Politics"}},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"item":{"@id":"/tag/law/","name":"Law"}},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"item":{"@id":"https://time.com/2928473/a-constitutional-guide-on-where-to-stand-when-protesting/","name":"A Supreme Court Guide for Where to Stand When Protesting"}}]}] ```