Justice O'Connor once explained that "no legal rule or doctrine is safe from ad hoc nullification by this Court when an occasion for its application arises in a case involving state regulation of abortion." (I think a similar principle applies to the Eighth Amendment; more on Glossip later.) In the lead-up to Dobbs, I listed a host of precedents in which the law was distorted to protect Roe. One such case was Hill v. Colorado. The Court upheld a "buffer" zone around an abortion clinic, which prevented people from expressing pro-life views. Hill was always inconsistent with the Court's other forum cases, but abortion was just too important.
In the wake of Dobbs, there have been several petitions urging the Court to overrule Hill. Indeed, local governments have attempted to manipulate the Court's jurisdiction to save the precedent. (I'm looking at you Westchester County!) But the Court has continued to deny those petitions.
Yesterday, the Supreme Court denied yet another case that sought to overrule Hill. In Coalition Life v. City of Carbondale, Justice Alito would have granted the petition, and Justice Thomas wrote a lengthy dissent from denial. Thomas repeated his usual refrain that Hill distorted First Amendment principles, and it is difficult to see what is left of Hill after Dobbs: "Hill's abortion exceptionalism turned the First Amendment upside down."
