A federal judge in New York ruled that a local ordinance improperly restricted free speech rights, awarding two pro-life activists only $1 in nominal damages.

According to CNA, on Aug. 12, a federal court sided with two sidewalk counselors who challenged a Westchester County law that, according to the court, violated the Constitution.

The dispute began in 2022, when lawyers from the Thomas More Society filed a lawsuit against Westchester County in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The legal team represented sidewalk counselors Regina Molinelli and Oksana Hulinsky, who regularly offer guidance outside abortion facilities. They argued that a new county rule interfered with their right to speak with individuals near such clinics.

The ordinance at the heart of the case prohibited what it called “interference” with access to abortion services. While the county said the measure was meant to ensure public safety, the plaintiffs viewed it as an attempt to limit speech on public sidewalks near the facilities. The activists did not seek monetary compensation beyond symbolic damages.

On Aug. 12, Judge Philip Halpern ruled that the ordinance violated both the free speech and due process protections of the Constitution. In his decision, the judge concluded that the law was too vague and risked penalizing lawful expression, giving the plaintiffs a legal victory. He issued a symbolic award of $1, as the individuals involved had only requested nominal damages.

Court Decision Highlights Free Speech Concerns

The lawsuit was filed after the enforcement of the ordinance led to heightened tensions between protestors and those accessing abortion services. The Thomas More Society argued that peaceful outreach on public property is protected under the First Amendment. They said the ordinance unfairly targeted those offering alternatives to abortion.

The plaintiffs maintained that their actions consisted of voluntary conversations and the distribution of literature, not harassment or physical obstruction. Judge Halpern’s ruling acknowledged that the ordinance's language lacked clarity, which could allow local authorities to suppress protected political or religious speech.

Although the county had already repealed the ordinance before the court's decision, the ruling addressed the law’s past impact on constitutional rights. The Thomas More Society said it would continue to challenge portions of the ordinance that had not been struck down. In particular, it plans to appeal the parts that regulate what the county termed "following-and-harassing" behavior.

Activists Receive Token Damages in Lawsuit

Christopher Ferrara, an attorney for the Thomas More Society, stated that the legal outcome carries significance beyond the nominal sum awarded. He described the decision as a strong signal to local governments that similar restrictions on speech may not withstand judicial scrutiny. The case, he suggested, could serve as a precedent in other jurisdictions facing related disputes.

“This ruling sends a powerful message to municipalities nationwide,” Ferrara said, adding that unclear laws that aim to suppress pro-life viewpoints on public property “will not stand.” He called the court’s decision an affirmation of basic freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution.

Ferrara emphasized that his clients do not seek confrontation but instead aim to present what he called compassionate options to individuals considering abortion. According to him, they do so peacefully while standing on sidewalks where speech is typically afforded strong protections.

Legal Conflict Reflects Ongoing National Debate

Westchester County’s ordinance is one of several local laws enacted in recent years seeking to regulate speech near abortion clinics. Supporters of such laws often cite safety and patient privacy, while critics argue they suppress lawful protest and religious expression. Courts across the country have issued mixed decisions on the subject.

This case, decided in a federal court based in the Southern District of New York, underscores the challenges local governments face when writing laws that affect constitutionally protected activity. The court did not rule on whether all of the ordinance’s provisions were unlawful, which is why the Thomas More Society intends to continue its legal effort.

Despite the repeal of the ordinance, the plaintiffs moved forward with the case to establish legal accountability for what they saw as past violations. The nominal $1 judgment serves as official recognition of the precedent they sought to establish, confirming that their rights had been compromised.