A Star Tribune editorial argued that the U.S. Supreme Court struck the right balance in protecting citizens at abortion clinics while allowing free speech for those seeking to discourage abortions. The Court ruled that a 35-foot zone was too limiting to protesters but ruled on narrow grounds allowing states to enact buffer zone laws that still allow free speech but also protect citizens from harassment. (Minneapolis Star Tribune, June 29, 2014, by the Editorial Board)
A Harvard professor argued that in striking down the Massachusetts laws establishing a 35-foot buffer zone at abortion clinics, Roberts wrote an opinion that liberals would finding encouraging, preserving the right of a state to make reasonable content-neutral laws that were narrowly tailored and recognized the rights of protesters to free speech. (Bloomberg News, July 29, 2014, by Noah Feldman)
Others were not appeased by the ruling. A Peoria Journal Star editorial, June 28, 2014, noted that the Supreme Court’s own buffer zone would not pass the Court’s own litmus test. “…for the sake of consistency, the Supreme Court ought to take a look at its own buffer zone, which would seem likewise unconstitutional. Indeed, the high court’s rules state that ‘no person shall engage in a demonstration within the Supreme Court building and grounds,’ which includes its marble plaza, paid for by taxpayers. of course. The term ‘demonstration’ includes … picketing, speechmaking, marching, holding vigils or religious services and all other like forms of conduct that involve the communication or expression of views or grievances, engaged in by one or more persons, the conduct of which is reasonably likely to draw a crowd or onlookers,” the Journal Star wrote.