@- casebrief Saved to my Mac v Autosave D () 3 - Home Insert Draw Design Layout References Mailings Review View Q Tellme v TimesNew.. v 12 v A" A" Aav Ao T AaBbCcDdEe | AaBbCcDdEe Normal No Spacing ~ B I Uva x, X Av#vAv Heading: McCullen v. Coakley (2014) AaBbCcD AaBbCcDdEe Heading 1 Heading 2 Facts: There was a law that prevented individuals from standing within 35 feet of an entrance or driveway to any place where abortions are performed, other than a hospital. There were 2 laws that w General Laws, h, 266 sections 120 E %4. McCullen and a few others attempted to sue Coakley, who was the Massachusetts Attorney General at the time because they felt as if the 35-foot buffer zone for abortion clinics and hospitals violated the First and the Fourteenth Amendments. Issue: Whether the Massachusetts law creating a 35-foot buffer zone around abortion clinics violates the First Amendment. Holding: The Supreme Court held up the First Amendment and struck down the Massachusetts law which made a 35-foot buffer zone around abortion clinics, stating that the Massachusetts law undermines the First Amendment. Rule of Law: The Court states that \"For a content-neutral time, place, or manner regulation to be narrowly tailored, it must not 'burden substantially more speech than is necessary to further the government's legitimate interests.\" While the state has a reasonable interest in protecting access to abortion clinics and trying to prevent harassment from occurring, it cannot supersede and go over the First Amendment rights for free speech. Reasoning: The Court rules that the government shall not regulate expression that would draw a substantial burden on speech in which the \"speech does not serve to advance its goals.\" Justice 'Ward paraphrases that the government may not regulate expression that would substantially burden speech that does not seek to better its goal. Concurring: Justice Scalia has a concurring opinion as she agrees that the Massachusetts law should be struck down as it contradicts with the First Amendment. But, she states that the law should use strict scrutiny because with all the data collected, she does not think that it is narrowly tailored. Page 10f 1 321words [X English (United States) AaBb( , [ 4 () Comments Title Styles Dictate Pane 3 Focus = 5 = 2 Editing v NG 7 & Editor Creative Cloud o M%