Planned Parenthood Shasta-Diablo, Inc. v. Williams

In Planned Parenthood Shasta-Diablo, Inc. v. Williams (1994) 7 Cal.4th 860 [ 30 Cal. Rptr.2d 629 , 873 P.2d 1224 ] ( Planned Parenthood I ), this court upheld an injunction limiting the protest activities of petitioners, anti-abortion activists, to the sidewalk across the street from a women's health clinic operated by Planned Parenthood, Shasta-Diablo, Inc. (Planned Parenthood). Thereafter, the United States Supreme Court announced its decision in Madsen v. Women's Health Center, Inc. (1994) 512 U.S. ___ [ 129 L.Ed.2d 593 , 114 S.Ct. 2516 ] ( Madsen ), which upheld, under a slightly stricter constitutional standard than we applied in Planned Parenthood I, an injunction creating a buffer zone of 36 feet around a women's health clinic, thereby effectively restricting the anti-abortion protesters in that case to the other side of the street from the clinic. ( 512 U.S. at p. ___ [129 L.Ed.2d at pp. 609-611, 114 S.Ct. at pp. 2526-2527].)

Petitioners herein petitioned the United States Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. The Supreme Court granted certioriari, vacated our earlier judgment, and remanded the cause to this court "for further consideration in…

In Planned Parenthood Shasta-Diablo, Inc. v. Williams (1994) 7 Cal.4th 860 [ 30 Cal.Rptr.2d 629 , 873 P.2d 1224 ] (Planned Parenthood I), this court upheld an injunction limiting the protest activities of petitioners, anti-abortion activists, to the sidewalk across the street from a women’s health clinic operated by Planned Parenthood, Shasta-Diablo, Inc. *1012 (Planned Parenthood). Thereafter, the United States Supreme Court announced its decision in Madsen v. Women’s Health Center, Inc. (1994) 512 U.S. _ [ 129 L.Ed.2d 593 , 114 S.Ct. 2516 ] (Madsen), which upheld, under a slightly stricter constitutional standard than we applied in Planned Parenthood I, an injunction creating a buffer zone of 36 feet around a women’s health clinic, thereby effectively restricting the anti-abortion protesters in that case to the other side of the street from the clinic. ( 512 U.S. at p. _ [129 L.Ed.2d at pp. 609-611, 114 S.Ct. at pp. 2526-2527].)

Petitioners herein petitioned the United States Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. The Supreme Court granted certioriari, vacated our earlier judgment, and remanded the cause to this court “for further consideration in light of’ Madsen.…

The trial court issued a sweeping permanent injunction prohibiting anti-abortion protesters from picketing on the public *1026 sidewalk in front of a health clinic at which abortions are performed. The only issue before this court is whether the injunction improperly restricted the protesters’ right of free expression, in violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

This is the second time that we have addressed the validity of the injunction. Originally, a majority of this court held the injunction to be constitutional. (Planned Parenthood Shasta-Diablo, Inc. v. Williams (1994) 7 Cal.4th 860 [ 30 Cal.Rptr.2d 629 , 873 P.2d 1224 ], hereafter Planned Parenthood I.) I disagreed. Thereafter, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the judgment, and directed this court to reconsider the matter in light of the high court’s recent decision in Madsen v. Women’s Health Center, Inc. (1994) 512 U.S. _ [ 129 L.Ed.2d 593 , 114 S.Ct. 2516 ] (hereafter Madsen), which set forth the constitutional limitations on the power of a trial court to enjoin anti-abortion picketing in front of a clinic.

Again, a majority of this court holds that the trial…