The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit [official website] on Wednesday reinstated [opinion, PDF] a challenge to a Pittsburgh ordinance [text, PDF] establishing a 15-foot buffer zone around abortion clinics. The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) [advocacy website] challenged [JURIST report] the ordinance, which states that one may not “knowingly congregate, patrol, picket or demonstrate in a zone extending 15 feet from any entrance to the hospital or health care facility,” including abortion clinics and other medical facilities, but the lawsuit was dismissed [opinion, PDF] last year by a judge for the US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania [official website]. The Third Circuit reinstated plaintiffs’ First Amendment claims Wednesday:

Considered in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs, the First Amendment claims are sufficient to go forward at this stage of the litigation. The speech at issue is core political speech entitled to the maximum protection afforded by the First Amendment, and the City cannot burden it without first trying, or at least demonstrating that it has seriously considered, substantially less restrictive alternatives that would achieve the City’s legitimate, substantial, and content-neutral interests.

The appeals court made no ruling on the merits of the case, which will now return to the lower court.

ADF represents five anti-abortion activists, including Nikki Bruni, who engage in practices such as “sidewalk counseling” of individuals entering healthcare facilities to receive abortions. The Third Circuit has previously upheld the city’s buffer zone, but plaintiffs brought a new challenge in light of a 2014 US Supreme Court [official website] decision that struck down [JURIST report] a similar buffer zone in Massachusetts. The court held in McCullen v. Coakley [SCOTUSblog materials] that a 35-foot protester-free buffer zone around the entrance or driveway of an abortion clinic is an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment [text]. The McCullen decision was unexpected [JURIST op-ed] by some, as the court had upheld a similar restriction on free speech in Hill v. Colorado [text] in 2000.