Whether the City of Englewood's speech-free buffer zones, including zones outside an abortion clinic, violate the First Amendment

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Petitioner Jeryl Turco has been _ sidewalk counseling peacefully for years on a public sidewalk outside an abortion facility. In response to the arrival of new and reportedly unruly protesters outside that clinic, Respondent City of Englewood created speechsuppressing buffer zones against, not just the protesters, but also peaceful sidewalk counselors like Petitioner Turco, and it did not just authorize zones at the relevant abortion facility, but outside all health care and “transitional” facilities in the City. Except for the smaller size of the buffer zones and its broader application to other facilities, Englewood’s ordinance is, in all material respects, identical to the law this Court unanimously declared unconstitutional in McCullen v. Coakley, 573 U.S. 464 (2014). The Third Circuit’s decision upholding that ordinance mangles McCullen, conflicts with a Sixth Circuit decision involving similar legislation, Sisters For Life, Inc. v. Cty., 56 F.4th 400 (6th Cir. 2022), embraces a novel “substantial burden” test for limits on speech on public sidewalks, and hides behind Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 7038, 744 (2000), which this Court has observed is a “distort[ion]” of “First Amendment doctrines.” Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org., 142 8. Ct. 2228, 2276 & n.65 (2022). The questions presented are: 1. Whether the City of Englewood’s speech-free buffer zones, including zones outside an abortion clinic, violate the First Amendment. 2. Whether this Court should overrule Hill v. Colorado. ii PARTIES The caption of the case contains the names of all the parties.