In the 1996 case of Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving abortion clinic protests. The court upheld an injunction that created "fixed buffer zones" around clinics and barred demonstrators from approaching anyone entering or exiting without their consent within these areas, citing it as a content-neutral restriction that served significant government interests in maintaining public safety and order, protecting women's freedom to seek pregnancy-related services, and ensuring unobstructed access to clinics. However, the court struck down provisions creating "floating buffer zones", which prohibited demonstrating within fifteen feet of any person or vehicle seeking access to or leaving such facilities regardless of location because they burdened more speech than necessary to serve relevant governmental interests.

In the dissenting opinion for Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York, Justice Stevens argued that the majority's decision to uphold a fixed buffer zone around abortion clinics while striking down "floating" buffer zones was inconsistent and illogical. He contended that both types of restrictions served the same purpose - protecting women seeking abortions from harassment and intimidation - and should be evaluated under the same standard. Moreover, he suggested that floating buffer zones might actually be less restrictive than fixed ones because they only apply when protestors are in close proximity to patients or clinic staff. Therefore, he believed it was wrong for the court to categorically reject them as unconstitutional infringements on free speech rights without considering their potential benefits.