Petitioners are sidewalk counselors who engage in
quiet, one-on-one conversations with women visiting
an abortion clinic in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. A
painted semi-circle extends 15 feet from the clinic's
door. Under the City's buffer-zone law, the counselors
may not speak—or even pray—in this zone because
the City views Petitioners' message of hope, personal concern, and assistance as advocacy or demonstration. Yet the City allows others to speak face-to-face
in the zone for nearly any other reason.

Because the buffer zone burdens and disfavors the
counselors' speech, they sued. Confronting the City's
unmistakably invalid ordinance, the Third Circuit unilaterally construed the law to prohibit prayer or
generic advocacy but to allow counseling. This
exacerbated a 7-3 circuit split over whether federal courts have authority to limit state laws to avoid
constitutional flaws. It then held the rewritten law—
which Pittsburgh neither wanted nor requested—content neutral; rejected McCullen 's narrow-tailoring
standard, in conflict with three circuits; and held the
burden on speech insignificant or de minimis. After litigating five years, the result is an advisory opinion
that neither binds state courts nor prohibits City
officials from prosecuting Petitioners in the future, even for counseling. The questions presented are:

1. Whether federal courts have authority to save
a state or local law from unconstitutionality by positing a limiting construction that has no state-law
basis and contradicts governing authorities' understanding of their own law.

2. Whether Pittsburgh's buffer-zone ordinance
violates the Free Speech Clause.

Whether federal courts have authority to save a state or local law from unconstitutionality by positing a limiting construction that has no state-law basis and contradicts governing authorities' understanding of their own law