Abortion opponents wanted the Supreme Court to scrap protest restrictions around clinics. Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said they would have taken the case.

For nearly three years, it has seemed inevitable that the Supreme Court would strike down the “buffer zones” that restrict protests near the entrances of reproductive health clinics. A majority of the court has already castigated these laws—and past precedent upholding them—as a subversion of anti-abortion protesters’ First Amendment rights.

Justices Thomas and Alito dissented from the court’s refusal to reconsider a 25-year-old precedent upholding “buffer zones” around abortion clinics.

The Supreme Court has declined to hear cases from abortion opponents who say limiting demonstrations near clinics violate their First Amendment rights.

The Supreme Court turned away two appeals asking the justices to overrule a 25-year-old decision that allowed for buffer zones around abortion clinics.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented, saying that the precedent deserved a fresh look since the court overturned Roe.

Cities argued that the restrictions were enacted to curb disturbing behavior from protesters outside health care facilities.

Abortion opponents wanted the Supreme Court to scrap protest restrictions around clinics. Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said they would have taken the case.

The US Supreme Court dealt a setback to abortion opponents, refusing to reconsider a 2000 decision that lets states and cities create protective zones to shield patients from being approached near clinic entrances.

N.J., that ban anti-abortion activists from approaching someone entering an abortion clinic, sometimes dubbed “sidewalk counseling.” Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito both indicated they would’ve taken up the case, but it requires four ...

The Supreme Court refused Monday to take up a First Amendment case to revisit a previous ruling enshrining abortion clinic buffer zone laws, earning a fiery dissent from Justice Thomas.

“Hill was wrong the day it was decided, and the case for overruling it has only strengthened ever since,” Paul Clement, a veteran conservative Supreme Court attorney who previously served as solicitor general, wrote in the petition challenging Carbondale’s ordinance.