In the case of Judy Madsen et al. v. Women's Health Center, Inc., et al., 1993, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute regarding First Amendment rights and abortion clinic protests. The court upheld certain restrictions imposed by an injunction against anti-abortion protesters at a Florida clinic but struck down others as unconstitutional infringements on free speech rights. The court found that while the state had significant interests in ensuring public safety and order, preserving residential privacy, and protecting freedom to seek pregnancy-related services - these did not justify all of the broad limitations placed on expressive activity near clinics by protestors. Specifically, it held that blanket prohibitions on "images observable" from inside a clinic or any uninvited approaches within 300 feet were too restrictive; however, it affirmed other parts such as maintaining clear access to entrances (36-foot buffer zone) and limiting noise levels which could disrupt medical procedures.

In the dissenting opinion for Judy Madsen, et al. v. Women's Health Center, Inc., et al., Justice Scalia argued that the majority had wrongly applied a higher level of scrutiny to restrictions on speech outside abortion clinics than it would have in other contexts. He contended that the court should not create special rules for certain types of speech just because they are controversial or uncomfortable. Instead, he believed all forms of public protest should be protected equally under the First Amendment unless they involve threats or violence. Furthermore, he criticized the majority's decision as an overreach and claimed it was based more on personal views about abortion rather than established legal principles regarding free speech rights.