Hill v. Colorado
E666866
Hill v. Colorado is a 2000 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld a state law creating buffer zones around individuals entering healthcare facilities, significantly shaping First Amendment jurisprudence on protest and speech restrictions near abortion clinics.
All labels observed (2)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Hill v. Colorado canonical | 1 |
| Leila Jeanne Hill, et al. v. State of Colorado, et al. | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T7476307 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Hill v. Colorado Context triple: [McCullen v. Coakley, relatedCase, Hill v. Colorado]
-
A.
Colorado Department of State v. Baca
Colorado Department of State v. Baca is a U.S. federal court case addressing whether states can remove or sanction presidential electors who refuse to vote in accordance with their state's popular vote in the Electoral College.
-
B.
Lucas v. Forty-Fourth General Assembly of Colorado
Lucas v. Forty-Fourth General Assembly of Colorado is a 1964 U.S. Supreme Court case that applied the "one person, one vote" principle to invalidate a Colorado legislative apportionment scheme that had been approved by popular referendum.
-
C.
Wolf v. Colorado
Wolf v. Colorado was a 1949 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held the Fourth Amendment’s exclusionary rule did not apply to the states, a position later reversed by Mapp v. Ohio.
-
D.
Griffin v. Breckenridge
Griffin v. Breckenridge is a 1971 U.S. Supreme Court decision that recognized a federal cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) against private conspiracies to deprive individuals of equal protection or equal privileges and immunities.
-
E.
Milliken v. Bradley
Milliken v. Bradley is a landmark 1974 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited the scope of school desegregation remedies by ruling that courts could not impose cross-district busing plans absent proof of interdistrict segregation.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Hill v. Colorado Target entity description: Hill v. Colorado is a 2000 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld a state law creating buffer zones around individuals entering healthcare facilities, significantly shaping First Amendment jurisprudence on protest and speech restrictions near abortion clinics.
-
A.
Colorado Department of State v. Baca
Colorado Department of State v. Baca is a U.S. federal court case addressing whether states can remove or sanction presidential electors who refuse to vote in accordance with their state's popular vote in the Electoral College.
-
B.
Lucas v. Forty-Fourth General Assembly of Colorado
Lucas v. Forty-Fourth General Assembly of Colorado is a 1964 U.S. Supreme Court case that applied the "one person, one vote" principle to invalidate a Colorado legislative apportionment scheme that had been approved by popular referendum.
-
C.
Wolf v. Colorado
Wolf v. Colorado was a 1949 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held the Fourth Amendment’s exclusionary rule did not apply to the states, a position later reversed by Mapp v. Ohio.
-
D.
Griffin v. Breckenridge
Griffin v. Breckenridge is a 1971 U.S. Supreme Court decision that recognized a federal cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) against private conspiracies to deprive individuals of equal protection or equal privileges and immunities.
-
E.
Milliken v. Bradley
Milliken v. Bradley is a landmark 1974 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited the scope of school desegregation remedies by ruling that courts could not impose cross-district busing plans absent proof of interdistrict segregation.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (47)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
United States Supreme Court case
ⓘ
abortion-related case ⓘ free speech case ⓘ |
| affectedArea | sidewalks and public ways near health care facilities ⓘ |
| citation | 530 U.S. 703 ⓘ |
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 2000-06-28 ⓘ |
| dissentingJustices |
Anthony Kennedy
ⓘ
linked to:
Anthony M. Kennedy
Antonin Scalia ⓘ Clarence Thomas ⓘ William Rehnquist ⓘ
linked to:
William H. Rehnquist
|
| docketNumber | 98-1856 ⓘ |
| fullCaseName |
Leila Jeanne Hill, et al. v. State of Colorado, et al.
ⓘ
linked to:
Hill v. Colorado
|
| holding |
Colorado’s 8-foot floating buffer zone statute is constitutional under the First Amendment
ⓘ
The statute does not violate the right to free speech on public sidewalks ⓘ The statute is a valid content-neutral time, place, and manner restriction ⓘ |
| impact |
narrowed the scope of First Amendment protections for close-range counseling near clinics
ⓘ
significantly influenced later abortion clinic protest jurisprudence ⓘ upheld state authority to impose floating buffer zones near clinic entrances ⓘ |
| jurisprudentialSignificance | landmark case on the constitutionality of buffer zones under the First Amendment ⓘ |
| keyConcept |
buffer zones around health care facilities
ⓘ
captive audience doctrine ⓘ content neutrality ⓘ public forum doctrine ⓘ time, place, and manner test ⓘ |
| lawDescription | Prohibited knowingly approaching within 8 feet of another person, without consent, to pass a leaflet, display a sign, or engage in oral protest, education, or counseling ⓘ |
| lawDescription | Statute created an 8-foot floating buffer zone within 100 feet of the entrance to a health care facility ⓘ |
| legalIssue |
First Amendment free speech
ⓘ
abortion clinic protests ⓘ content-neutral time, place, and manner regulation ⓘ speech restrictions near health care facilities ⓘ |
| majorityJustices |
Anthony Kennedy
ⓘ
linked to:
Anthony M. Kennedy
David Souter ⓘ
linked to:
David H. Souter
John Paul Stevens ⓘ Ruth Bader Ginsburg ⓘ Sandra Day O’Connor ⓘ Stephen Breyer ⓘ
linked to:
Stephen G. Breyer
William Rehnquist ⓘ
linked to:
William H. Rehnquist
|
| majorityOpinionBy | John Paul Stevens ⓘ |
| originatingJurisdiction | Colorado ⓘ |
| relatedCase |
Madsen v. Women’s Health Center, Inc.
ⓘ
McCullen v. Coakley ⓘ Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York ⓘ |
| statuteInvolved | Colorado Revised Statute § 18-9-122(3) ⓘ |
| subjectMatter |
regulation of protest activity near abortion clinics
ⓘ
speech restrictions around health care facilities ⓘ |
| vote | 6-3 ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: Hill v. Colorado Description of subject: Hill v. Colorado is a 2000 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld a state law creating buffer zones around individuals entering healthcare facilities, significantly shaping First Amendment jurisprudence on protest and speech restrictions near abortion clinics.
Referenced by (2)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.
linked to: Hill v. Colorado