‍WASHINGTON, D.C. — The recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to decline hearing challenges to abortion clinic buffer zones has reignited discussions among conservative legal scholars about the Court's current trajectory and the necessity for appointing more originalist justices. This development underscores the importance of judicial appointments in shaping the nation's legal landscape, particularly concerning First Amendment rights and abortion-related cases.

In February 2025, the Supreme Court turned away appeals from anti-abortion activists challenging the legality of buffer zones around abortion clinics. These zones, designed to restrict protests and demonstrations near abortion facilities, have been criticized by opponents as unconstitutional infringements on free speech rights. Notably, conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito expressed their willingness to hear the appeals, highlighting a divide within the Court.

Justice Clarence Thomas, in his dissent, criticized the Court's 2000 decision in Hill v. Colorado, which upheld similar buffer zones, arguing that the ruling undermines First Amendment protections. Despite his dissent, the majority of the Court refused to reconsider the case, raising concerns among constitutional originalists about the future of free speech jurisprudence in America.

The Urgent Need for More Originalist Justices

Carrie Severino, president of the Judicial Crisis Network and a former clerk for Justice Thomas, has consistently emphasized the significance of appointing justices who adhere to an originalist interpretation of the Constitution. In her view, the reluctance of the current Court to revisit precedents like Hill v. Colorado indicates a pressing need for more justices committed to upholding constitutional liberties as originally intended.

Severino argues that without a robust originalist majority, the Court may continue to sidestep critical issues affecting fundamental rights. Her position reflects a broader concern among conservatives that the Supreme Court must be filled with justices who are willing to take on politically sensitive but constitutionally significant cases.

A Cautious Court That Fails to Protect Free Speech

Ed Whelan, a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and former clerk for Justice Antonin Scalia, has also weighed in on the Court’s decision. Whelan contends that the Court’s refusal to address challenges to buffer zones reflects a cautious approach that may inadvertently uphold restrictions on free speech.

He suggests that a judiciary more aligned with originalist principles would be less inclined to uphold laws that potentially infringe upon constitutional rights. This concern extends beyond buffer zones and into other areas of First Amendment law, where the Court's inaction could embolden lower courts to continue restricting public expression in the name of “public order” or “safety.”

Broader Implications for First Amendment Jurisprudence

The implications of the Supreme Court's current composition extend beyond the immediate issue of abortion clinic buffer zones. Ilya Shapiro, a legal scholar at the Manhattan Institute, points out that the Court’s hesitancy to engage with contentious First Amendment cases could set a precedent that allows lower courts to maintain regulations limiting free speech.

Shapiro emphasizes that appointing justices who are steadfast in their commitment to constitutional originalism is essential to ensure that such rights are vigorously protected. Without a Court willing to hear cases like buffer zone challenges, the free speech rights of pro-life advocates and other political demonstrators remain in jeopardy.

The Trump Factor: A Crucial Opportunity for Reform

Given these concerns, the prospect of additional Supreme Court appointments during a potential second term for President Donald Trump takes on heightened significance. With the ability to nominate justices who embody originalist and textualist philosophies, there exists an opportunity to solidify a majority that prioritizes the protection of constitutional freedoms.

Such appointments could prove pivotal in revisiting and potentially overturning precedents that, in the view of conservative scholars, compromise fundamental rights. Should Trump secure another term, reshaping the judiciary could become a central pillar of his legacy, much like it was in his first administration.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s recent actions regarding abortion clinic buffer zones have illuminated the critical role that judicial appointments play in shaping the interpretation and application of constitutional rights. For conservative legal scholars like Severino, Whelan, and Shapiro, the path forward involves appointing justices who are unwavering in their commitment to originalist principles, thereby ensuring that the Constitution’s guarantees remain robust and unimpeded.

As 2028 approaches, the question remains: Will the next president have the opportunity to correct the Court’s current course, or will these missed opportunities define the trajectory of free speech in America for generations to come?

References

• Reuters – U.S. Supreme Court declines to hear challenges to abortion clinic buffer zones (February 2025)
• Judicial Crisis Network – Carrie Severino: The Urgent Need for More Originalist Justices (January 2025)
• Ethics and Public Policy Center – Ed Whelan on the Court’s Failure to Address Buffer Zone Cases (February 2025)
• Manhattan Institute – Ilya Shapiro: Free Speech and the Future of the First Amendment (February 2025)

‍