Rule 65(a)

Respondents operate a medical clinic in Melbourne, Florida, that offers abortions among other services. The clinic is located on Dixie Highway, a major traffic artery in the city. The clinic property occupies less than one acre and is bounded on the north and south by other commercial property, on the west by a two-lane road, and on the east by a parking lot and an intersecting street. In September 1992, a group of antiabortion protesters began picketing the clinic. The protesters, whose number varied from 10 to 40 on any given day, engaged in a variety of activities near the clinic. They sang, chanted, and carried signs and banners. They also distributed literature to, and engaged in conversations with, people approaching the clinic. Although the protesters were generally nonviolent, they occasionally trespassed onto clinic property and blocked access to the clinic. They also picketed the nearby residences of some of the clinic's employees. In response to these activities, the clinic obtained an injunction from the Florida Circuit Court. The initial injunction prohibited trespassing on or entering clinic property, blocking or interfering with access to or egress from the clinic, physically or verbally abusing persons entering or leaving the clinic, making loud or raucous noise within earshot of the clinic during specified hours, physically approaching any person seeking clinic services within 300 feet unless the person indicates a desire to communicate, using any images observable by patients inside the clinic, and picketing or demonstrating within 300 feet of clinic employees' residences. After the initial injunction proved insufficient, protesters continued to impede access to the clinic by congregating on the paved portion of Dixie Way and marching in front of the clinic's driveways. Sidewalk counselors approached vehicles heading toward the clinic. The number of people congregating varied from a handful to 400, and the noise varied from singing and chanting to the use of loudspeakers and bullhorns. The trial court issued a broader amended injunction that established a 36-foot buffer zone around the clinic entrances and driveway, noise restrictions during surgical procedures and recovery periods, a 300-foot no-approach zone around the clinic, a 300-foot buffer zone around employees' residences, and an in concert provision. The Florida Supreme Court upheld the amended injunction. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the conflict between the Florida Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals.

In August 1970, the Detroit Branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People along with individual parents and students filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on behalf of a class consisting of all school children in the City of Detroit and all Detroit resident parents who have children of school age. The named defendants included the Governor of Michigan, the Attorney General, the State Board of Education, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, the Board of Education of the city of Detroit, its members, and the city's former superintendent of schools. The complaint challenged the constitutionality of Act 48 of the 1970 Michigan Legislature, which interfered with a voluntary partial high school desegregation plan adopted by the Detroit Board of Education known as the April 7, 1970 Plan, and alleged that the Detroit Public School System was segregated on the basis of race as a result of the official policies and actions of the defendants. Initially the District Court denied a preliminary injunction, but the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for trial on the merits. On remand the District Court approved a Magnet Plan proposed by the Board, but the Court of Appeals again remanded with instructions to proceed to trial on the merits of the substantive allegations. The trial on the issue of segregation in the Detroit school system began on April 6, 1971, and continued through July 22, 1971, consuming 41 trial days. On September 27, 1971, the District Court issued its findings and conclusions, determining that governmental actions and inaction at all levels had combined to establish and maintain the pattern of residential segregation throughout the Detroit metropolitan area. The District Court found that the Detroit Board of Education had created and maintained optional attendance zones, drawn attendance zones along north-south lines, bused Negro pupils to predominantly Negro schools, and constructed schools in a manner that had a segregative effect. The court also found that the State of Michigan had failed to provide authorization or funds for transportation within Detroit, had enacted Act 48 which impeded integration, and bore responsibility for the actions of the Detroit Board as a subordinate entity. The District Court initially directed submission of Detroit-only desegregation plans but later designated 53 of the 85 suburban school districts plus Detroit as the desegregation area. Thereafter, on June 14, 1972, the District Court issued its ruling on the desegregation area. On July 11, 1972, the court ordered the Detroit Board to purchase or lease at least 295 school buses for an interim plan. On June 12, 1973, a divided Court of Appeals sitting en banc affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded, holding that the record supported the findings of constitutional violations by the Detroit Board and state defendants. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider whether the relief ordered was appropriate.