Justice Clarence Thomas strongly criticized the Supreme Court after it refused to hear cases challenging abortion clinic buffer zones. The court’s decision leaves intact laws that limit pro-life activists from engaging in speech outside abortion facilities.
The legal challenge involved Carbondale, Illinois, and Englewood, New Jersey, where local ordinances prevented pro-life counselors from standing near clinic entrances to offer alternatives to abortion. Carbondale’s law was repealed in 2024, but Englewood’s restrictions remain.
BREAKING: Justice Clarence Thomas criticized the Supreme Court for refusing to take an important case about a city that is banning pro-life free speech.
"Our refusal to provide clarity is an abdication of our judicial duty."https://t.co/q4wWch5g39 pic.twitter.com/k1LfuA1N5m
— LifeNews.com (@LifeNewsHQ) February 24, 2025
Thomas, joined by Justice Samuel Alito, argued that the court missed an opportunity to overturn Hill v. Colorado, the 2000 case that upheld buffer zones. He stated that Hill was an “aberration” in First Amendment law and that its reasoning has been weakened since the court’s Dobbs v. Jackson ruling in 2022.
Best laugh on the bench.
“One thing I’d say in response to the media, I will absolutely leave the court when I do my job as poorly as you do yours.” — Justice Clarence Thomas pic.twitter.com/5W1oZ0DRlb
— Terri Green (@TerriGreenUSA) February 22, 2025
“Hill has been seriously undermined, if not completely eroded,” Thomas wrote in his dissent. He pointed out that restrictions forced pro-life counselors to stand in unsafe areas, making it nearly impossible to communicate their message effectively.
Though the court’s rejection was not accompanied by an explanation, Thomas warned that the decision allows unconstitutional restrictions to persist. He emphasized that lower courts continue to treat Hill as binding precedent, despite its contradictions with established free speech protections.
Pro-life advocates argue that buffer zone laws unfairly restrict speech against abortion while allowing supporters of the procedure to gather freely near clinics. With the court refusing to intervene, similar restrictions could remain in place across the country.
