National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra

Questions presented

SCOTUS records, cert granted 13 Nov 2017

The State of California enacted a law called the "Reproductive FACT Act." The State admits its purpose is targeting "crisis pregnancy centers" based on their viewpoint that "discourag[es]" abortion. The Act forces pro-life religious licensed centers to post notices that encourage women to contact the State to receive information on free or low cost abortions. The Act also burdens pro-life religious unlicensed centers' speech by requiring them to place extensive disclaimers in large fonts and in as many as 13 languages in their ads, which significantly burdens their ability to advertise. But the Act exempts most other licensed medical and unlicensed non-medical facilities, such as abortion providers, hospitals, and other healthcare facilities, as well as federal health care providers. The Ninth Circuit candidly admits that it upheld the Act amidst a "circuit split" with decisions by the Second and Fourth Circuits over how to scrutinize regulations of speech by medical professionals on controversial health issues. The ruling also conflicts with a recent decision by the Eleventh Circuit. The question presented is: Whether the Free Speech Clause or the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment prohibits California from compelling licensed pro-life centers to post information on how to obtain a state-funded abortion and from compelling unlicensed pro-life centers to disseminate a disclaimer to clients on site and in any print and digital advertising.

Opinion summary

Etalia.ai summary of the majority opinion

The U.S. Supreme Court case National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra in 2017 revolved around a California law, the Reproductive FACT Act, which required licensed pregnancy-related clinics to disclose information about state-funded services including abortions, and unlicensed facilities to notify visitors they were not medically certified. The petitioners - pro-life centers offering pregnancy-related services - argued that these requirements violated their First Amendment rights by forcing them to convey messages contrary to their beliefs. In a 5-4 decision led by Justice Clarence Thomas, the court sided with the petitioners stating that requiring such disclosures likely violates freedom of speech protected under the Constitution's First Amendment as it compels individuals or entities to speak against their principles without sufficiently justifying this infringement on constitutional rights.

Dissent summary

Etalia.ai summary of the dissenting opinions

In the dissenting opinion for NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FAMILY AND LIFE ADVOCATES v. BECERRA, Justice Breyer argued that the California law requiring crisis pregnancy centers to provide information about state-funded services, including abortions, did not violate free speech rights. He compared it to laws requiring doctors to inform patients about all medical options available before obtaining informed consent for a procedure. The majority's decision could open up these and other disclosure laws to constitutional scrutiny under the First Amendment. Furthermore, he disagreed with their interpretation of precedent regarding professional speech regulation and believed they were applying an overly broad definition of what constitutes compelled speech in this context.