Are Standards Applied to Injuctions Curtailing Constitutional Rights Different from Those Applied for Ordinances Doing the Same ?
In Madsen v. Women's Health Ctr. (512 US 753), the Supreme Court addressed an injunction which kept demonstrators a given minimum distance from an abortion clinic.
The Court pointed out that the standards to be applied to injunctions which inhibit constitutional rights are different from those to be applied to ordinances having that effect.
On the one hand, injunctions carry greater risks of discriminatory enforcement than ordinances of general application, but on the other hand they can be framed more precisely to the wrongful conduct involved.
The Court held, therefore, that mere analysis of whether the injunction constituted a reasonable restriction on time, place and manner of expression was insufficiently rigorous.
The Court held that the proper point of analysis was whether the injunction burdened no more speech than necessary to serve a significant governmental interest (512 US 753, 765).
That case, to be sure, involved First Amendment concerns which are not relevant to the civil banishment injunction.