Impact on Public Policy: Buffer Zone Ordinances
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
Entered Permanent Injunction Preserving Pittsburgh Buffer-Zone
On December 17, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania entered a permanent injunction in Brown v. Pittsburgh, preserving the 15-foot buffer zone and directing the City of Pittsburgh to clearly mark the protected zones around clinics.
U.S. Court of Appeals Upholds Modified Pittsburgh Buffer Zone Law
On October 30, 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued an 83-page ruling in Brown v. City of Pittsburgh, in which an anti-abortion protester challenged the constitutionality of Pittsburgh’s Medical Safety Zone Ordinance.
Chief Judge Scirica, writing for a three-judge panel that included Judges Ambro and Smith, upheld the constitutionality of both operative provisions of the ordinance —a 15-foot fixed no-protest zone around clinic entrances and a floating 8-foot personal bubble zone of protection around each person approaching the clinic. The court determined that both zones are content-neutral and consistent with the First Amendment speech and free exercise clauses, the Equal Protection Clause, and the Pennsylvania Religious Freedom Protection Act. However, while noting that “the question is close” and that the Supreme Court’s clinic buffer zone jurisprudence did not dispose of the issue, the appeals court concluded that the combination of the two zones was, “on this record,”insufficiently narrowly tailored, and that the City could therefore keep one but not both kinds of protective zones. (The record before the appeals court, developed at a preliminary stage of litigation, did not include any testimony of any clinic escorts, staff or patients.) The appeals court remanded the case to the trial judge to permit the City to determine which of the two types of buffer zones it wished to keep.
In the same decision, the appeals court also vacated and remanded the trial judge’s preliminary ruling that the buffer zone ordinance did not unconstitutionally infringe on the First Amendment based on the layout, location, and noise level surrounding particular clinics, because this ruling may have been influenced by the trial judge’s unannounced site visits to the protected clinics, a practice of which the appellate panel sharply disapproved. The panel also affirmed the trial court’s preliminary ruling rejecting Mary Kathryn Brown’s claim that the ordinance had been selectively enforced against her because of her anti-abortion viewpoint, and sustained the trial court’s dismissal of portions of Brown’s complaint.
Creation of Local Buffer Zone Ordinance (Pittsburgh, December 2005)