A recent federal lawsuit challenges the legality of a city ordinance that limits how individuals can communicate near healthcare facilities, including abortion clinics. The suit alleges that these restrictions infringe on fundamental constitutional rights and have a chilling effect on protected speech in public spaces.
The complaint was filed by Matthew Lipscomb in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on March 31, 2026, naming the City of Detroit as defendant. Lipscomb is seeking injunctive relief, declaratory relief, nominal damages, and attorneys’ fees under federal civil rights statutes.
According to court documents, Lipscomb describes himself as a Christian who regularly shares anti-abortion views outside abortion clinics in Detroit. He states that his activities include offering literature and engaging in conversations with clinic visitors from public sidewalks. Lipscomb is part of an informal group called Revival of Anti-Abortion Hope (RAAH), which gathers outside Scotsdale Women’s Center in Detroit to counsel individuals considering abortion.
The dispute centers on Detroit Ordinance § 31-14-1 et seq., titled “Offenses at Healthcare Facilities,” which took effect on October 22, 2024. Section 31-14-3 creates an eight-foot personal “bubble zone” within a one-hundred-foot radius of any entrance to a healthcare facility. This provision prohibits approaching another person for communication without consent inside this area. Section 31-14-4 establishes a fifteen-foot “buffer zone” around facility entrances where congregating, picketing, or demonstrating is not allowed.
Lipscomb claims these zones make it nearly impossible for him to share his message effectively. He asserts that being forced to stand farther away reduces opportunities for conversation and makes handing out literature difficult or impractical. According to the complaint, “the combined and complimentary impact of the two ordinances effectively censors Lipscomb from sharing his desired religious, anti-abortion message to his desired audience outside of Scotsdale abortion clinic.” The filing also alleges that enforcement actions by police officers and security guards have further limited his ability to communicate with clinic visitors.
The background section details how the ordinance was drafted after requests from Scotsdale Women’s Center’s executive director Shelly Miller to City Council member Gabriela Santiago-Romero regarding anti-abortion activity outside the clinic. The National Lawyers Guild assisted in drafting the legislation. Public hearings featured comments both supporting and opposing the measure; supporters cited concerns about harassment while opponents argued that peaceful counseling was being unfairly restricted.
Lipscomb contends that these measures violate multiple constitutional provisions: (1) free speech under the First Amendment by imposing broad restrictions based on content and viewpoint; (2) due process under the Fourteenth Amendment because he believes the language is vague and grants excessive discretion to officials; and (3) free exercise of religion because he says secular expression is treated more favorably than religious expression.
The complaint outlines specific harms resulting from enforcement: “This fear of sanction and possible arrest severely limits Lipscomb’s constitutionally protected expression on public sidewalks and ways near Scotsdale abortion clinic.” It further states that compliance with the ordinance renders his outreach largely ineffective while noncompliance risks criminal penalties.
Lipscomb asks the court for several forms of relief: declarations that sections 31-14-1 et seq. are unconstitutional both facially and as applied; preliminary and permanent injunctions preventing enforcement against religious or anti-abortion expression outside Scotsdale; nominal damages for violation of rights; costs; attorneys’ fees; and any other relief deemed just by the court.
Attorneys listed for Lipscomb are Nathan W. Kellum (First Liberty Institute) and Jeff T. Schrameck (Schrameck Law). The case is identified as Case No.: 26-11060.
Source: 426cv11060_Matthew_Lipscomb_v_City_of_Detroit_Complaint_Eastern_District_of_Michigan.pdf
