Reposted by Tom Alisankus
Tom Alisankus
@tja19.bsky.social
353 followers 39 following 1K posts
Municipal Judge going on 34 years. Currently embarrassed to admit this with current SCOTUS, but 30+ years as an attorney. Cop for 40+ years. Currently small town chief of police in WI Live on a 17-acre horse farm-- the "Justice-B-Dun Ranch"
![The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. JUSTICE
ALITO would grant the petition for a writ of certiorari.
JUSTICE THOMAS, dissenting from the denial of certiorari.
In Hill v. Colorado, 530 U. S. 703 (2000), this Court upheld a state law restricting peaceful speech within 100 feet
of abortion clinics. It was clear at the time that Hill’s reasoning “contradict[ed] more than a half century of well-established First Amendment principles.” Id., at 765 (Kennedy, J., dissenting); see also id., at 742 (Scalia, J., joined
by THOMAS, J., dissenting). A number of us have since described the decision as an “absurd,” “defunct,” “erroneous,”
and “long-discredited” “aberration” from the rest of our
First Amendment jurisprudence. See City of Austin v.
Reagan Nat. Advertising of Austin, LLC, 596 U. S. 61, 86–
87, 92, 103–104 (2022) (THOMAS, J., joined by GORSUCH and
BARRETT, JJ., dissenting) (internal quotation marks omitted). We have long stopped applying Hill. See, e.g., City of
Austin, 596 U. S., at 76. And, a majority of this Court recently acknowledged that Hill “distorted [our] First Amendment doctrines.” Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U. S. 215, 287, and n. 65 (2022). Following our
repudiation in Dobbs, I do not see what is left of Hill. Yet,
lower courts continue to feel bound by it. The Court today
declines an invitation to set the record straight on Hill’s defunct status. I respectfully dissent.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:6h7b2i6ttw3l4t7pvbvxdith/bafkreicle74qq6asiii2dfd6g7gqo35wbkzt2vncdmooobhdrfhafgqai4)
