InsideGov
Supreme Court · Decisions

Judy Madsen, et al. v. Women's Health Center, Inc., et al.

The Court considered a First Amendment challenge by antiabortion protesters to a Florida state court injunction limiting their demonstrations outside an abortion clinic, and it affirmed in part and reversed in part.· AI-written

512 U.S. 753 · No. 93-880 · 1993 term · Rehnquist Court

Decided Jun 30, 1994 · argued Apr 28, 1994

Privacy · Abortion: including contraceptives

Majority opinion: William Rehnquist

The voteMajorityDissent

6–36 in the majority, 3 in dissent

3 dissents (6–3)

Affirmed and reversed (or vacated) in part. Judy Madsen, et al. lost.

What this ruling means

Affirmed in part and reversed in part: the Supreme Court upheld part of the decision of the Florida Supreme Court and overturned or set aside the rest.

Judy Madsen, et al. was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Lost” means the Court did not give that side the result it asked for.

From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.

Report a correction

Summary

The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.

Madsen v. Women's Health Center, Inc., 512 U.S. 753 (1994), is a United States Supreme Court case where Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of an injunction entered by a Florida state court which prohibits antiabortion protesters from demonstrating in certain places, and in various ways outside of a health clinic that performs abortions.

The Petitioners, Madsen and other abortion protesters (Petitioners) regularly protested the Respondents, the Women’s Health Center and other abortion clinics (Respondent), in Melbourne, Florida as well as in front of the homes of clinic employees. The Respondents then sought and were granted, by a Florida trial court, an injunction on several grounds, restraining the Petitioner’s ability to protest, which was upheld by the Florida Supreme Court. The Petitioner’s appeal to the United States Supreme Court claimed that the injunction restricted their rights to free speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Read the full article on Wikipedia

Data notes

The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.

Report a correction

How the justices voted

Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 1993 term. Filled: the 6 in the majority. Hollow: the 3 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.

More liberalMore conservativeMedianStevensBlackmunSouterGinsburgKennedyO'ConnorRehnquistScaliaThomas

Majority(6)

Dissent(3)

Data notes

Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.

Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.

Report a correction

The parties

Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.

Petitioner
Judy Madsen, et al.Protester, demonstrator, picketer or pamphleteer (non-employment related), or non-indigent loiterer
Respondent
Women's Health Center, Inc., et al.Health organization or person, nursing home, medical clinic or laboratory, chiropractor
Reached the Court by
Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
Why it was taken
A federal court and a state court had ruled differently
Data notes

The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.

Report a correction

The law at issue

The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.

Provision
First Amendment (speech, press, and assembly)
Kind of law
Constitutional Amendment
Decided by
Judicial review (state level)
Data notes

The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.

Report a correction

Timeline

What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.

  1. Jun 30, 1994DecidedDecided · Decided 6–3: affirmed and reversed (or vacated) in part. Judy Madsen, et al. lost.
  2. Apr 28, 1994ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
  3. Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari). A federal court and a state court had ruled differently.
  4. Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the Florida Supreme Court: affirmed.
  5. Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the Florida trial court.
Data notes

From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.

Report a correction

Other decisions on the same issue

39 other argued cases since 1946 on abortion, including contraceptives, newest first.

  1. Moyle v. United States144 S. Ct. 2015Jun 27, 2024 · 144 S. Ct. 2015Privacy6–36–3 band

  2. Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine602 U.S. 367Jun 13, 2024 · 602 U.S. 367Privacy9–0Unanimous band

  3. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health OrganizationLandmark · Birth control and abortion142 S. Ct. 2228Jun 24, 2022 · 142 S. Ct. 2228Privacy6–36–3 band

  4. June Medical Services LLC v. Russo140 S. Ct. 2103Jun 29, 2020 · 140 S. Ct. 2103Privacy5–45–4 band

  5. National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra138 S. Ct. 2361Jun 26, 2018 · 138 S. Ct. 2361Privacy5–45–4 band

  6. Whole Woman's Health v. HellerstedtLandmark · Birth control and abortion579 U.S. 582Jun 27, 2016 · 579 U.S. 582Privacy5–36–3 band

  7. McCullen v. Coakley573 U.S. 464Jun 26, 2014 · 573 U.S. 464Privacy9–0Unanimous band

  8. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General v. Leroy Carhart, et al.Landmark · Birth control and abortion550 U.S. 124Apr 18, 2007 · 550 U.S. 124Privacy5–45–4 band

  9. Joseph Scheidler, et al. v. National Organization for Women, Inc., et al.547 U.S. 9Feb 28, 2006 · 547 U.S. 9Privacy8–0Unanimous band
  10. Kelly A. Ayotte, Attorney General of New Hampshire v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, et al.546 U.S. 320Jan 18, 2006 · 546 U.S. 320Privacy9–0Unanimous band

  11. Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, Inc.537 U.S. 393Feb 26, 2003 · 537 U.S. 393Privacy8–18–1 band

  12. Don Stenberg, Attorney General of Nebraska, et al. v. Leroy CarhartLandmark · Birth control and abortion530 U.S. 914Jun 28, 2000 · 530 U.S. 914Privacy5–45–4 band

  13. Leila Jeanne Hill, Audrey Himmelmann, and Everitt W. Simpson, Jr. v. Colorado, et al.530 U.S. 703Jun 28, 2000 · 530 U.S. 703Privacy6–36–3 band

  14. Paul Schenck and Dwight Saunders v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York et al.519 U.S. 357Feb 19, 1997 · 519 U.S. 357Privacy6–36–3 band

  15. National Organization for Women, Inc., etc., et al. v. Joseph Scheidler et al.510 U.S. 249Jan 24, 1994 · 510 U.S. 249Privacy9–0Unanimous band

  16. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania, et al. v. Robert P. Casey, et al., etc.Landmark · Birth control and abortion505 U.S. 833Jun 29, 1992 · 505 U.S. 833Privacy5–45–4 band

  17. Irving Rust, et al. v. Sullivan, Louis W., Secretary of Health and Human Services500 U.S. 173May 23, 1991 · 500 U.S. 173Privacy5–45–4 band

  18. Ohio v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health et al.497 U.S. 502Jun 25, 1990 · 497 U.S. 502Privacy6–36–3 band
  19. Hodgson et al. v. Minnesota et al.497 U.S. 417Jun 25, 1990 · 497 U.S. 417Privacy6–36–3 band
  20. Webster, Attorney General of Missouri, et al. v. Reproductive Health Services et al.492 U.S. 490Jul 3, 1989 · 492 U.S. 490Privacy5–45–4 band

  21. Neal F. Hartigan, Attorney General of the State of Illinois, etc., et al. v. David Zbaraz and Allan G. Charles etc.484 U.S. 171Dec 14, 1987 · 484 U.S. 171Privacy4–45–4 band
  22. Thornburgh, Governor of Pennsylvania, et al. v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists et al.476 U.S. 747Jun 11, 1986 · 476 U.S. 747Privacy5–45–4 band
  23. Simopoulos v. Virginia462 U.S. 506Jun 15, 1983 · 462 U.S. 506Privacy8–18–1 band
  24. Planned Parenthood Association of Kansas City, Missouri, Inc., et al. v. Ashcroft, Attorney General of Missouri, et al.462 U.S. 476Jun 15, 1983 · 462 U.S. 476Privacy5–45–4 band
  25. City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, Inc., et al.462 U.S. 416Jun 15, 1983 · 462 U.S. 416Privacy6–36–3 band

  26. H. L. v. Matheson, Governor of Utah, et al.450 U.S. 398Mar 23, 1981 · 450 U.S. 398Privacy6–36–3 band

  27. Williams et al. v. Zbaraz et al.448 U.S. 358Jun 30, 1980 · 448 U.S. 358Privacy5–45–4 band
  28. Harris, Secretary of Health and Human Services v. McRae et al.448 U.S. 297Jun 30, 1980 · 448 U.S. 297Privacy5–45–4 band

  29. Bellotti, Attorney General of Massachusetts, et al. v. Baird et al.443 U.S. 622Jul 2, 1979 · 443 U.S. 622Privacy8–18–1 band

  30. Colautti, Secretary of Welfare of Pennsylvania, et al. v. Franklin et al.439 U.S. 379Jan 9, 1979 · 439 U.S. 379Privacy6–36–3 band

  31. Poelker, Mayor of St. Louis, et al. v. Doe432 U.S. 519Jun 20, 1977 · 432 U.S. 519Privacy6–36–3 band
  32. Maher, Commissioner of Social Services of Connecticut v. Roe et al.432 U.S. 464Jun 20, 1977 · 432 U.S. 464Privacy6–36–3 band

  33. Beal, Secretary, Department of Public Welfare of Pennsylvania, et al. v. Doe et al.432 U.S. 438Jun 20, 1977 · 432 U.S. 438Privacy6–36–3 band

  34. Carey, Governor of New York, et al. v. Population Services International et al.Landmark · Birth control and abortion431 U.S. 678Jun 9, 1977 · 431 U.S. 678Privacy7–27–2 band

  35. Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri et al. v. Danforth, Attorney General of Missouri, et al.428 U.S. 52Jul 1, 1976 · 428 U.S. 52Privacy5–45–4 band

  36. Doe et al. v. Bolton, Attorney General of Georgia, et al.410 U.S. 179Jan 22, 1973 · 410 U.S. 179Privacy7–27–2 band

  37. Roe et al. v. Wade, District Attorney of Dallas CountyLandmark · Birth control and abortion410 U.S. 113Jan 22, 1973 · 410 U.S. 113Privacy7–27–2 band

  38. Eisenstadt, Sheriff v. BairdLandmark · Birth control and abortion405 U.S. 438Mar 22, 1972 · 405 U.S. 438Privacy6–18–1 band

  39. United States v. Vuitch402 U.S. 62Apr 21, 1971 · 402 U.S. 62Privacy5–45–4 band

Data notes

Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.

Report a correction

Official record

Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.