WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court declined Monday, January 11 to weigh in on a Pittsburgh, Pa., censorship-zone law similar to a Massachusetts law the High Court struck down in 2014. Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys, who represent five sidewalk counselors challenging the law, asked the court to take the case, and a diverse array of groups, 17 states, and 97 members of Congress filed friend-of-the-court briefs in support.
The law at issue in Bruni v. City of Pittsburgh prohibits speech and advocacy — including prayer — in painted zones outside medical facility entrances. The city chose to paint and enforce such censorship zones on the sidewalk outside only two facilities in the entire metropolitan area — Pittsburgh’s two abortion facilities — targeting face-to-face conversations by pro-life sidewalk counselors.
Recognizing the constitutional problems with such a ban in light of the 2014 Supreme Court ruling in McCullen v. Coakley, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit last year claimed to narrow the law to say that the ban doesn’t apply to sidewalk counseling, only patrolling, picketing, or demonstrating.
It then upheld the ban — contrary to what the same court ruled six years ago when it first considered Pittsburgh’s law and observed that “the Ordinance imposes the same kind of burden on speech” as the Massachusetts law the Supreme Court struck down in McCullen. Because the Third Circuit’s decision still allowed for some speech to be censored, ADF attorneys asked the Supreme Court to take the case.
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress