Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
US Supreme Court Brief of Life Legal Defense Foundation and Walter B. Hoye II in McCullen v Coakley

US Supreme Court Brief of Life Legal Defense Foundation and Walter B. Hoye II in McCullen v Coakley

Ratings: (0)|Views: 241 |Likes:
Published by Tom Ciesielka
Supreme Court Asked to Clarify Double Standard for Abortion Clinics: Life Legal Defense Foundation Challenges Discriminatory Massachusetts “Bubble Zone”
Supreme Court Asked to Clarify Double Standard for Abortion Clinics: Life Legal Defense Foundation Challenges Discriminatory Massachusetts “Bubble Zone”

More info:

Categories:Business/Law
Published by: Tom Ciesielka on Sep 17, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/19/2014

pdf

text

original

 
No. 12-1168In The
Supreme Court of the United States
Eleanor McCullen, et al.,
 Petitioners,
 v.Martha Coakley, Attorney General for theCommonwealth of Massachusetts, et al.,
 Respondents.
On Writ of Certiorari to theUnited States Court of Appeals for the First CircuitBrief of Life Legal Defense Foundationand Walter B. Hoye II, as
amici curiae
in Support of Petitioners and Reversal
Catherine W. Short
Counsel of Record Life Legal Defense Foundation P.O. Box 2105 Napa, CA 94558(707) 224-6675 LLDFOjai@cs.comCounsel for Amici Curiae
 
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PageTable of Authorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iiInterests of Amici Curiae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1Introduction and Summary of Argument . . . . . . 3 Argument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5I.
Madsen
and
Hill
Set the Stage for the Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 A.
Madsen
and Governmental Interests . . . . . 5B.
Hill
and the Interest in ‘‘AvoidingUnwanted Communication’’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9II. The Act Combines the Errorsof 
Hill
and
Madsen
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 A. A Restriction on Speech OccurringOnly at Abortion Clinics is PresumptivelyContent- and Viewpoint-Based . . . . . . . . . . 12B. The Exemption for Clinic Employees and Agents Renders the StatuteContent- and Viewpoint-Based . . . . . . . . . . 16C. The Act’s Speech-Free Zone IsGrossly Overbroad for Serving AnyLegitimate Governmental Interest . . . . . . 19III. This Court Should Reject Abortion Exceptionalism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
 
ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIESCases:
Page
 Boos v. Barry
, 485 U.S. 312 (1988) . . . . . . . . . . . 13
 Brown v. Pittsburgh
, 586 F.3d 263(3rd Cir. 2009) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10, 22, 23, 24
Citizens United v. FEC 
,558 U.S. 310 (2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc.
535 U.S. 425 (2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence
,468 U.S. 288 (1984) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Clift v. City of Burlington
, 2013 U.S. Dist.LEXIS 21888 at *6 (February 19, 2013) . . . . 23
 Foti v. City of Menlo Park
, 146 F.3d 629(9th Cir. 1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
 Hill v. Colorado
, 530 U.S. 703 (2000) . . . .
passim Hoye v. Oakland
, 653 F.3d 855(9th Cir. 2011) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2, 17, 18, 23, 27
 Madsen v. Women’s Health Center 
,512 U.S. 753 (1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
passim McCullen v. Coakley
, 571 F.3d 167(1st Cir. 2009) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19, 21, 22

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->