SAN DIEGO, CA – A sidewalk counselor who has helped more than 100 women choose life will ask the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit today to strike down a San Diego ordinance that lets abortion clinic staff approach women freely while threatening him with arrest for doing the same. Thomas More Society Senior Counsel Michael McHale will argue Lopez v. City of San Diego before a three-judge panel at 9:00 a.m. PT on Thursday, October 29, 2026.

The ordinance layers an eight-foot “bubble zone” on top of vague bans on “harassment” and “offensive” noise, effectively turning the sidewalks outside hundreds of healthcare facilities, schools, and places of worship across San Diego into no-speech zones, while exempting clinic staff and escorts. Violations carry up to six months in jail. Lopez is asking the court to reverse the district court’s dismissal of his lawsuit and order a preliminary injunction.

“Nobody should be punished for peaceful pro-life sidewalk counseling that seeks merely to help women considering abortion find the support they need for themselves and their unborn babies,” said Michael McHale, Senior Counsel at Thomas More Society. “Yet, the city now treats as a criminal any peaceful pro-life sidewalk counselor who dares to approach, without prior consent, women in need to offer a leaflet with alternatives to abortion. San Diego doesn’t get to clear its sidewalks of pro-life speech just because it disagrees with it.”

Lopez and his late wife began praying and sidewalk counseling outside the downtown San Diego Planned Parenthood while raising their four children. After her death, he continued in her memory.

Before San Diego imposed to no-speech zone, one-third to one-half of passersby accepted Lopez’s leaflets, he estimates. Now he freezes whenever someone comes within eight feet, unsure whether a simple greeting could bring criminal charges.

“Roger isn’t shouting at anyone or blocking anyone’s path. He offers a leaflet, a kind word, and a phone number for free help,” McHale said. “Under this law, abortion facility staff and escorts can approach, ‘educate,’ and even harass people within the zone, while Roger risks jail for the same conduct. The First Amendment does not let a city license one side of a debate and criminalize the other.”

The city’s no-speech zone law also harms the women Lopez serves, who have a right to hear about alternatives and free support before they walk through the clinic door.

“This law doesn’t only punish Roger. It takes away a woman’s chance to hear, at the moment it matters most, that she has other options,” said Peter Breen, Executive Vice President and Head of Litigation at Thomas More Society. “Every life saved through Roger’s ministry began with a conversation on that sidewalk. Under this no-speech law, the next woman won’t have that chance.”

The record undercuts the city’s case. Thomas More Society’s reply brief also shows the law is unconstitutionally vague, making it “harassment” to approach someone who has merely “indicated” they don’t want to be approached and banning “offensive” noise regardless of volume. Moreover, the brief points to close ties between city officials and the local abortion provider as evidence the law targets pro-life speech based on viewpoint.

The brief also takes aim at Hill v. Colorado, the 2000 Supreme Court decision the city relies on to defend its bubble zone. Thomas More Society observes that the Supreme Court expressly condemned Hill in its Dobbs decision, and that even on its own terms, Hill never approved anything like the layered restrictions San Diego adopted.

“San Diego’s ordinance goes further than any bubble zone law the courts have upheld,” McHale said. “Today, we ask the court to let Roger speak freely again on the same sidewalk where he and his wife began their life-saving work.”

Hearing details:

• Oral argument takes place in Courtroom 1 of the Richard H. Chambers U.S. Court of Appeals Building, 125 South Grand Avenue, Pasadena, with the court session beginning at 9:00 a.m. PT.
• Livestream link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2Zjbe0m46U

Read the court documents:

• Plaintiff-Appellant’s Reply Brief (Ninth Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeals)
• Plaintiff-Appellant’s Opening Brief (Ninth Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeals)
• Verified Complaint (U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California)