Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

injunctionappealregulationfreedom of speech
regulationfreedom of speech

Related Cases

In re Hall County Grand Jury Proceedings, 175 Ga.App. 349, 333 S.E.2d 389
View Case »
Grant v. McAuliffe, 41 Cal.2d 859, 264 P.2d 944, 42 A.L.R.2d 1162
View Case »
Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank PJSC v. Saad Trading, Contracting and Financial Services Company, nan
View Case »
In re Marriage of Crosby & Grooms, 116 Cal.App.4th 201, 10 Cal.Rptr.3d 146, 04 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1695, 2004 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2531
View Case »
Walker v. City of Hutchinson, Kan., 352 U.S. 112, 77 S.Ct. 200, 1 L.Ed.2d 178
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, 585 U.S. 755, 138 S.Ct. 2361, 201 L.Ed.2d 835, 86 USLW 4627, 18 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6340, 2018 Daily Journal D.A.R. 6224, 27 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 524

Facts

The case involves two crisis pregnancy centers, one licensed and one unlicensed, that challenged California's Reproductive Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care, and Transparency Act (FACT Act). The law required licensed clinics to inform clients about state-funded family planning services, including abortions, while unlicensed clinics had to disclose their unlicensed status. The centers argued that these requirements violated their First Amendment rights to free speech. The District Court denied their request for a preliminary injunction, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed this decision, leading to an appeal to the Supreme Court.

The California Reproductive Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care, and Transparency Act (FACT Act) requires clinics that primarily serve pregnant women to provide certain notices. Licensed clinics must notify women that California provides free or low-cost services, including abortions, and give them a phone number to call. Unlicensed clinics must notify women that California has not licensed the clinics to provide medical services.

Issue

Whether California's FACT Act, which mandates certain disclosures by licensed and unlicensed pregnancy-related clinics, violates the First Amendment rights of those clinics.

Whether the California Reproductive Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care, and Transparency Act (FACT Act) violates the First Amendment rights of crisis pregnancy centers.

Rule

The First Amendment prohibits laws that abridge the freedom of speech, distinguishing between content-based regulations, which are presumptively unconstitutional and subject to strict scrutiny, and content-neutral regulations. Content-based laws must be narrowly tailored to serve compelling state interests. The Court has not recognized 'professional speech' as a separate category exempt from these rules.

The First Amendment, applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits laws that abridge the freedom of speech. Content-based regulations are presumptively unconstitutional and may be justified only if the government proves that they are narrowly tailored to serve compelling state interests.

Analysis

The Court found that the licensed notice requirement was a content-based regulation of speech because it compelled clinics to convey a specific message that contradicted their mission. The Ninth Circuit's application of a lower level of scrutiny for 'professional speech' was rejected, as the Court emphasized that speech is not unprotected merely because it is delivered by professionals. The licensed notice was deemed not sufficiently tailored to achieve the state's interest in informing low-income women about available services, as it excluded many clinics that could provide similar information.

The licensed notice is a content-based regulation of speech. By compelling individuals to speak a particular message, such notices 'alters the content of [their] speech.' The Ninth Circuit did not apply strict scrutiny because it concluded that the notice regulates 'professional speech.' However, this Court has never recognized 'professional speech' as a separate category of speech subject to different rules.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit's decision, holding that both the licensed and unlicensed notice requirements imposed unconstitutional burdens on the clinics' free speech rights.

The licensed notice likely violates the First Amendment. The notice is 'wildly underinclusive' because it applies only to clinics that have a 'primary purpose' of 'providing family planning or pregnancy-related services' while excluding several other types of clinics that also serve low-income women.

Who won?

The petitioners, which included a licensed and an unlicensed crisis pregnancy center, prevailed in the Supreme Court. The Court ruled that the FACT Act's notice requirements violated the First Amendment by compelling speech that contradicted the clinics' mission and by imposing undue burdens on their protected speech. The Court emphasized that the state failed to demonstrate that the regulations were narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest, thus affirming the petitioners' rights.

The petitioners, which included a licensed and an unlicensed crisis pregnancy center, prevailed in the Supreme Court. The Court ruled that the FACT Act's notice requirements violated the First Amendment by compelling speech that contradicted the clinics' mission and by imposing undue burdens on their protected speech.

You must be