Bruni v. City of Pittsburgh

Opinion

Statement of THOMAS, J.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES NIKKI BRUNI, ET AL. v. CITY OF PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 19–1184. Decided January 11, 2021

The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. Statement of JUSTICE THOMAS respecting the denial of certiorari. The city of Pittsburgh, like many jurisdictions, has cre- ated “buffer zones” around abortion clinics. These zones of- ten impose serious limits on free speech. Many even pro- hibit certain one-on-one conversations. In 2000, we upheld one such law, determining that it survived under the First Amendment because it satisfied intermediate scrutiny. Hill v. Colorado, 530 U. S. 703 (2000). Our use of interme- diate scrutiny there, however, “is incompatible with current First Amendment doctrine as explained in Reed [v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U. S. 155 (2015)] and McCullen [v. Coakley, 573 U. S. 464 (2014)].” Price v. Chicago, 915 F. 3d 1107, 1117 (CA7 2019). For example, these more recent decisions es- tablish that strict scrutiny is the proper standard of review when a law targets a “specific subject matter . . . even if it does not discriminate among viewpoints within that subject matter.” Reed, 576 U. S., at 169. I agree with the Court’s decision not to take up this case because it involves unclear, preliminary questions about the proper interpretation of state law. But the Court should take up this issue in an appropriate case to resolve the glar- ing tension in our precedents.