Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York
http://dbpedia.org/resource/Schenck_v._Pro-Choice_Network_of_Western_New_York an entity of type: Thing
Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York, 519 U.S. 357 (1997), was a case heard before the United States Supreme Court related to legal protection of access to abortion. Was the First Amendment violated by placing an injunction on protesters outside abortion clinics? The court ruled in a 6–3 decision that "floating buffer zones" preventing protesters approaching people entering or leaving abortion clinics were unconstitutional, though "fixed buffer zones" around the clinics themselves remained constitutional. The Court's upholding the fixed buffer was the most important aspect of the ruling, because it was a common feature of injunctions nationwide.
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
Paul Schenck and Dwight Saunders v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York, et al.
xsd:integer
3742909
xsd:integer
1122576176
rdf:langString
unanimous ; Stevens, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg ; Stevens, O'Connor, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
<second>
172800.0
xsd:integer
357
xsd:integer
519
xsd:gMonthDay
--10-16
xsd:integer
1996
rdf:langString
Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York,
xsd:gMonthDay
--02-19
xsd:integer
1997
rdf:langString
Paul Schenck and Dwight Saunders v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York, et al.
rdf:langString
The injunction provisions imposing "fixed buffer zone" limitations are constitutional, but the provisions imposing "floating buffer zone" limitations violate the First Amendment.
rdf:langString
Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York
rdf:langString
Rehnquist
rdf:langString
Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York, 519 U.S. 357 (1997), was a case heard before the United States Supreme Court related to legal protection of access to abortion. Was the First Amendment violated by placing an injunction on protesters outside abortion clinics? The court ruled in a 6–3 decision that "floating buffer zones" preventing protesters approaching people entering or leaving abortion clinics were unconstitutional, though "fixed buffer zones" around the clinics themselves remained constitutional. The Court's upholding the fixed buffer was the most important aspect of the ruling, because it was a common feature of injunctions nationwide. Paul Schenck challenged a Federal District Court injunction that restricted "sidewalk counselors" from approaching abortion clinic patients and others with Bibles, tracts and anti-abortion messages. Because these protesters often violently harassed and intimidated patients and staff or prevented them from entering the clinic, the Court upheld the fixed buffer zone around the clinics, although it struck down the floating buffer zone around individuals because its indefinite and movable nature made it difficult to administer and risked overly restricting free speech.
rdf:langString
Breyer
rdf:langString
Scalia
rdf:langString
Kennedy, Thomas
xsd:nonNegativeInteger
4156