Kindschy v. Aish

Overview

(Supreme Court of Wisconsin, June 27, 2024): The Supreme Court of Wisconsin struck down a civil harassment injunction against an anti-abortion protester because it violated the First Amendment. The Court explained that in a criminal prosecution for harassment premised on true threats, the government must prove at a minimum that the defendant “consciously disregarded a substantial risk that his communications would be viewed as threatening violence.” Citing the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Counterman v. Colorado, the Court found that the defendant’s repeated comments to Kindschy, an abortion clinic worker, did not constitute “true threats,” and therefore were protected by the First Amendment. Kindschy had obtained a civil harassment injunction after the defendant repeatedly made intimidating comments urging her to repent, including statements that she would be “lucky” if she made it safely to her home that night, and that “bad things are going to start happening to you and your family.” The Court held that these statements “cannot be interpreted as true threats” because the defendant did not threaten violence or allude to any “recent, or well-known, real-world acts of violence,” and because they came from “a place of love or nonaggression.” Because the respondent’s statements were considered protected speech, the Court applied strict scrutiny and overturned the harassment injunction. The Court held that the injunction did not pass the “high bar” required by strict scrutiny because it “burdens significantly more speech than is necessary,” including by effectively preventing the defendant from speaking with other workers at the clinic. Read the full opinion here.

View all cases in the Judicial Trends in Public Health – August 15, 2024.

View all cases under “Constitutional Rights and the Public’s Health.”