Whether the Court should reconsider Hill v. Colorado in light of Reed v. Town of Gilbert and McCullen v. Coakley

QUESTION PRESENTED Chicago has made it a crime for a speaker to approach within eight feet of another person “for the purpose of passing a leaflet or handbill, displaying a sign to, or engaging in oral protest, education, or counseling,” without express consent. This “bubble zone” ordinance applies within 50 feet of the entrance to an abortion clinic or other medical facility. Petitioners brought a §1983 suit alleging that the Chicago ordinance violated the First Amendment. The district court upheld Chicago’s speech restriction based on this Court’s decision in Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703 (2000). The Seventh Circuit affirmed on the ground that Hill is still binding precedent on the lower courts, but emphasized that Hill is “incompatible with current First Amendment doctrine as explained in Reed [v. Town of Gilbert, 135 S. Ct. 2218 (2015)] and McCullen [v. Coakley, 134 8. Ct. 2518 (2014)].” App. 21. The panel recognized that “Hill’s content-neutrality holding is hard to reconcile with both McCullen and Reed . . .and [Hill’s] narrow-tailoring holding is in tension with McCullen.” App. 2. The question presented is whether this Court should reconsider Hill in light of the Court’s intervening decisions in Reed and McCullen.