October Term 2013 · Docket 12-1168

Can a state restrict protest speech near abortion clinics?

the sides that brought the case argue the law bans speech. The state argues it only moves speech.

Official caption
McCullen v. Coakley
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Mr. Rienzi argued sidewalks are special. He cited First Amendment protections for speech.

    Ms. Miller said the sides that brought the case can protest. She noted they use public spaces.

    Mr. Gershengorn called the law neutral. He said it moves speech, not bans it.

    Justice Ginsburg noted past disturbances. She said the state cannot predict behavior.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

This case tests a Massachusetts law. It limits protest near abortion clinics. the sides that brought the case say the law violates free speech. The state says it protects access.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on January 15, 2014.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

the sides that brought the case want the law struck down. They argue it bans protected speech.

The state wants the law upheld. It argues the rule only moves speech.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

the sides that brought the case claim public sidewalks are special. They say the law targets specific speakers.

The state claims the rule is neutral. It says the law only changes location.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Sotomayor asked about past obstruction events. She questioned the last incident date.

Justice Scalia asked about recent prosecutions. He inquired about blocking clinic entrances.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This dispute defines protest zones near clinics. It balances speech rights with access. The outcome shapes future protest laws.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON