Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York
United States Supreme Court
519 U.S. 357 (1997)

- Written by Josh Lee, JD
Facts
A group of protestors (defendants) had been forming large-scale blockades around medical clinics that offered abortion services. The protestors had been marching, standing, kneeling, sitting, and lying in the parking-lot entrances and doorways of the clinics. The protestors had also been harassing female patients going into the clinics, including pushing, shoving, and grabbing the patients, as well as grabbing and spitting on clinic volunteers who were escorting the patients in and out of the clinic. Four clinics and three doctors (plaintiffs) learned of a planned blockade and sought a temporary restraining order. The trial court granted the temporary restraining order, which prohibited blocking access to the clinics or physically abusing or harassing any patients. The order also prohibited the protestors from demonstrating within 15 feet of any patient, except that two sidewalk counselors were permitted to approach and talk to the patients in all areas. If the patients indicated the conversations were unwanted, the sidewalk counselors had to move back to the 15-foot buffer zone. However, the protestors continued to harass the patients, and the trial court entered a preliminary injunction that was mostly consistent with the temporary restraining order, except that the 15-foot buffer zone now applied to both patients and vehicles. This moving buffer zone was referred to as the floating buffer zone. The protestors appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Rehnquist, C.J.)
Concurrence/Dissent (Breyer, J.)
Concurrence/Dissent (Scalia, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.