Does Mr. Volokh argue, then, that a pro-choice State or municipality could lease to an abortion clinic an office facing onto a municipal space where the municipality could enforce USSC-type exclusions? Picketers could, of course, line the adjacent sidewalk, but they would not know whether those passing through are women seeking abortions, or run-of-the-mill municipal employees and public. That would be especially true if the abortion clinic had one or more interior doors to adjacent municipal offices.

Would today’s USSC uphold such an arrangement? If not, then Mr. Volokh’s argument disappears like dew on gossamer.

Massachusetts responded to the USSC decision by allowing the police a temporary (12-hour, I believe) right to clear away demonstrators after the occurrence of disorder. Not living in the area, I am not sure how that is working out in practice.

An approach I might have tried would have taken Justice Scalia’s complaint about viewpoint selectivity at face value:
Restore the 30-foot buffer, but authorize a vetted roster of law-abiding “sidewalk counselors” (plainly identified) to enter it under these conditions:

Patient seeks to enter alone: one “counselor” can approach within four feet, not blocking the way.
Patient seeks to enter with one companion: one “counselor” can approach within two feet, not blocking the way.
Patient seeks to enter with more than one companion: an equal number of “counselors” can approach withing two feet, not blocking the way. (The abortion clinic would soon put out the word that the number of companions should be kept to a minimum.)