# Madsen v. Women's Health Center, Inc. > Supreme Court of the United States · June 30, 1994 · 512 U.S. 753 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9433042 ## Case - **Full name:** MADSEN Et Al. v. WOMEN’S HEALTH CENTER, INC., Et Al. - **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States - **Decided:** June 30, 1994 - **Citations:** 512 U.S. 753; 8 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 426; 94 Daily Journal DAR 9272; 62 U.S.L.W. 4686; 94 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5040; 114 S. Ct. 2516; 129 L. Ed. 2d 593; 1994 U.S. LEXIS 5087 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Concurrence by Souter - **Judges:** Rehnquist, Black-Mun, O'Connor, Souter, Ginsburg, Stevens, Iii-E, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas - **Cited by:** 683 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - **Yellow flag:** Disagreed with by New York ex rel. Spitzer v. Operation Rescue National, 273 F.3d 184 (2001). - Negative treatments: 1 - Distinguished by: 1 - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9433042 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - holding that the fact that injunction at issue did not restrict the expression of those demonstrating in favor of abortion rights was "justly attributable to the lack of any similar demonstrations by those in favor of abortion [rights]" and noting that "the state court imposed… - holding that state court injunction restricting noise by antiabortion protestors, including chanting, singing, yelling, shouting and the use of bullhorns or other sound amplification equipment, burdened no more speech than necessary to ensure health and well-being of patients … - holding that “[ajbsent evidence that the [antiabortion] protesters’ speech is independently proscribable (ie., ‘fighting words’ or threats), or is so infused with violence as to be indistinguishable from a threat of physical harm,” a ban on all uninvited approaches to persons … - finding an injunction prohibiting ahti-abortion protestors from engaging in certain types of disruptive activity was content neutral and noting that “the fact that [a speech restriction] cover[s] people with a particular viewpoint does not itself render the [restriction] conte… - recognizing that the government’s interests in protecting a woman’s freedom to seek lawful medical services in connection with her pregnancy; ensuring the public safety and order; and protecting the property rights of all its citizens are “sufficient to justify an appropriatel… ## Opinion text Justice Souter, concurring. I join the Court’s opinion and write separately only to clarify two matters in the record. First, the trial judge made reasonably clear that the issue of who was acting “in concert” with the named defendants was a matter to be taken up in *777 individual cases, and not to be decided on the basis of protesters’ viewpoints. See Tr. 40, 43, 93, 115, 119-120 (Apr. 12,1993, Hearing). Second, petitioners themselves acknowledge that the governmental interests in protection of public safety and order, of the free flow of traffic, and of property rights are reflected in Florida law. See Brief for Petitioners 17, and n. 7 (citing, e. g., Fla. Stat. §§870.041-870.047 (1991) (public peace); § 316.2045 (obstruction of public streets, highways, and roads)). --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9433042. Public record. Not legal advice.