The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to revisit its 2000 decision in Hill v. Colorado, which upheld buffer zones around abortion clinics to prevent protests and preserve patient access. The recent decision leaves in place ordinances from Carbondale, Illinois, and Englewood, New Jersey, that restrict anti-abortion activists from engaging in “sidewalk counseling” near clinics.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented, arguing the court should have taken the opportunity to overturn Hill, which they view as harmful to First Amendment rights. Thomas criticized the court’s refusal to clarify the law, claiming Hill has been “seriously undermined.”

Conservative attorney Paul Clement, representing anti-abortion group Coalition Life, argued that Hill was wrongly decided and that the buffer zones infringe on free speech. He received support from 15 Republican state attorneys general and other conservative groups. Carbondale’s legal team countered that their ordinance had already been repealed, making the case unfit for Supreme Court review.

In a similar case, Englewood, New Jersey, defended its 2014 buffer zone law, which was enacted following confrontations outside a clinic involving protesters from the group Bread of Life. A local resident, Jeryl Turco, who is not affiliated with the group, claimed her peaceful counseling efforts were unfairly restricted. Her legal team, led by Jay Sekulow, argued it violated her rights.

Englewood urged the court to reject Turco’s appeal, stating the case was highly fact-specific and did not represent a broad constitutional issue. The court ultimately declined to hear the case, leaving the lower court ruling intact.

Separately, the Supreme Court refused to hear a voting rights case challenging Pennsylvania’s requirement that mail-in ballots include a handwritten date. While critics argue this rule disqualifies legitimate votes, the justices upheld a ruling that the date requirement is legal under federal law.