Cases Previously Decided by Amy Coney Barrett
#Barrett hid behind precedent that fellow federal circuits said did not apply any longer to allow Chicago to prohibit pro-life activists from exercising their free speech, and did so w/o a concurring opinion as she did whenever she doubted precedent.
Price v. Chicago, No. 17-2196 (7th Cir. 2019)
Pro-life “sidewalk counselors” sued to enjoin Chicago’s “bubble zone” ordinance, which bars them from approaching within eight feet of a person within 50 feet of an abortion clinic if their purpose is to engage in counseling, education, leafletting, handbilling, or protest. They argued that the floating bubble zone was a facially unconstitutional content-based restriction on the freedom of speech. The district judge dismissed the claim, relying on the Supreme Court’s 2000 decision (Hill), which upheld a nearly identical Colorado law against a similar First Amendment challenge. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Abortion clinic buffer-zone laws “impose serious burdens” on core speech rights but under Hill, a floating bubble zone is not considered a content-based restriction on speech and is not subject to strict judicial scrutiny. The ordinance is classified as a content-neutral “time, place, or manner” restriction and is tested under the intermediate standard of scrutiny;Hill held that the governmental interests at stake—preserving clinic access and protecting patients from unwanted speech—are significant, and an 8-foot no-approach zone around clinic entrances is a narrowly tailored means to address those interests. The court noted that Hill’s content-neutrality holding is hard to reconcile with subsequent Supreme Court decisions, but those decisions did not overrule Hill, so it remains binding.
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/17-2196/17-2196-2019-02-13.html
https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/17-2196/17-2196-2019-02-13.pdf
#Barrett exclaimed the benefits of Jacobson, the decision that green-lit forced vaccines & carved out an emergency exception to Constitutional protection in "public health" or "emergency" cases used to justify forced sterilizations & detention camps. Read: https://politico.com/f/?id=00000174
https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000174-572b-d057-a37d-7fef3ec60000
https://twitter.com/Barnes_Law/status/1308234049505210369
Other Cases decided:
Dameion Perkins v. Milwaukee County,
https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/18-3710/18-3710-2019-08-27.pdf?ts=1566921617
Conner v. Vacek
http://41af3k34gprx4f6bg12df75i.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2020/04/Conner-v.-Vacek_-2020-U.S.-App.-LEXIS-10714.pdf
ILLINOIS REPUBLICAN PARTY, etal.v. J.B.PRITZKER,Governor of Illinois
https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000174-572b-d057-a37d-7fef3ec60000