But the Supreme Court went further and said that the law wasn’t a prior restraint in the first place, so strict scrutiny didn’t apply—rational basis did. The court took this position even though the law made clear—in advance of anyone speaking—that people couldn’t express their views within the thirty-six-foot buffer zone. The court reasoned that people could do it in other places, and the restraint didn’t hinge on the content of what the protesters wanted to say, so it wasn’t a constitutional problem.
Strict scrutiny vs Rational basis
