Facts
- Dr. Elrick Murray, an obstetrician-gynecologist who performed abortions, lived with his wife and children in Westfield, New Jersey, and practiced in Plainfield; he also performed abortions at a clinic in Howell and at other facilities.
- Anti-abortion demonstrators, including Michael Andrew Lawson and David Crist, regularly protested at the Howell clinic and learned Dr. Murray’s home address.
- Defendants notified Westfield police that they intended to picket the Murray residence.
- On January 20, 1991, approximately fifty-seven picketers demonstrated on the sidewalk in front of the Murray home and nearby homes, displaying graphic imagery and accusatory messages and speaking with neighbors about Dr. Murray’s abortion practice.
- The Chancery Division entered a temporary restraining order that included limits on certain words and imagery and sharply restricted the number, duration, and frequency of residential picketing.
- The trial court later entered a permanent injunction prohibiting defendants from picketing within 300 feet of the Murray residence.
- In a companion matter, anti-abortion demonstrators similarly picketed the residence of Dr. Daryl Boffard, and the Chancery Division enjoined residential picketing in the immediate vicinity of his home.
Issues
- Whether an injunction barring targeted picketing within 300 feet of a physician’s residence violates free-speech protections under the Federal and State Constitutions.
- Whether the residential picketing restriction is a permissible content-neutral time, place, and manner limitation that is narrowly tailored to protect residential privacy and to prevent harassment and intimidation while leaving open alternative channels of communication.
Decision
- The Supreme Court of New Jersey affirmed the Appellate Division and upheld the permanent injunction prohibiting defendants from picketing within 300 feet of the Murray residence.
- The Court treated the buffer-zone component as a content-neutral time, place, and manner restriction focused on the location of speech rather than the viewpoint or subject matter.
- The Court held that the State has a significant interest in protecting residential privacy and tranquility and in preventing targeted harassment and intimidation at the home.
- The Court concluded the 300-foot restriction was narrowly tailored to the residential setting and the record of intrusive, targeted demonstrations.
- The Court found the injunction left open ample alternative channels for defendants to communicate their anti-abortion message, including demonstrations at clinics and other public locations away from the residence.
- The Court likewise sustained comparable residential restrictions in the companion Boffard matter.
Legal Principles
- Targeted picketing at a private residence may be restricted more than speech in other public fora to protect residential privacy, tranquility, and security.
- A residential picketing injunction is constitutional when it functions as a content-neutral time, place, and manner restriction that (1) serves a significant governmental interest, (2) is narrowly tailored, and (3) leaves open ample alternative channels of communication.
- A buffer zone around a residence may be upheld when supported by findings that the conduct is personally targeted and reasonably perceived as harassing or intimidating, and the restriction limits only the residential venue rather than the underlying message.
Conclusion
The court upheld a 300-foot ban on targeted residential picketing of physicians who performed abortions, holding that the restriction permissibly protected home privacy and prevented harassment while preserving demonstrators’ ability to speak in alternative public settings.