NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FAMILY AND LIFE ADVOCATES, DBA NIFLA, ET AL. v. BECERRA, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL. - CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT - No. 16-1140

Sep 18, 2026

Uploaded by Rhys

National Institute of Family and Life Advocates, NIFLA, challenged California’s Reproductive Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care, and Transparency Act (FACT Act), which requires clinics primarily serving pregnant women to provide specific notices. Licensed clinics must inform patients of free or low-cost state services, including abortion, with a phone number; unlicensed clinics must disclose they lack state medical authorization. Petitioners argued both notices violate the First Amendment, and the Court held the licensed notice likely violates the First Amendment while the unlicensed notice analysis does not warrant the lower threshold sought.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages50

Reading Time2 h 6 min

AccessFree to download

Syllabus Notice and Background

Purpose and Requirements of the FACT Act

Proceedings and Lower-Court Holdings

Supreme Court Holding

Licensed Notice and Strict Scrutiny Analysis

Rejection of “Professional Speech” Category

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2017 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FAMILY AND LIFE ADVOCATES, DBA NIFLA, ET AL. v. BECERRA, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 16–1140. Argued March 20, 2018—Decided June 26, 2018 The California Reproductive Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care, and Transparency Act (FACT Act) was enacted to regulate crisis pregnancy centers—pro-life centers that offer pregnancy-related services. The FACT Act requires clinics that primarily serve pregnant women to provide certain notices. Clinics that are licensed must notify women that California provides free or low-cost services, including abortions, and give them a phone number to call. Its stated purpose is to make sure that state residents know their rights and what health care services are available to them. Unlicensed clinics must notify women that California has not licensed the clinics to provide medical services. Its stated purpose is to ensure that pregnant women know when they are receiving health care from licensed professionals. Petitioners—two crisis pregnancy centers, one licensed and one unlicensed, and an organization of crisis pregnancy centers—filed suit. They alleged that both the licensed and the unlicensed notices abridge the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment. The District Court denied their motion for a preliminary injunction, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed. Holding that petitioners could not show a likelihood of success on the merits, the court concluded that the licensed notice survived a lower level of scrutiny applicable to regulations of “professional speech,” and that the unlicensed notice satisfied any level of scrutiny. Held: 1. The licensed notice likely violates the First Amendment. Pp. 6– 17. (a) Content-based laws “target speech based on its communica- 2 NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FAMILY AND LIFE ADVOCATES v. BECERRA Syllabus tive content” and “are presumptively unconstitutional and may be justified only if the government proves that they are narrowly tailored to serve compelling state interests.” Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U. S , The licensed notice is a content-based regulation. By compelling petitioners to speak a particular message, it “alters the content of [their] speech.” Riley v. National Federation of Blind of N. C., Inc., 487 U. S. 781, 795. For example, one of the statesponsored services that the licensed notice requires petitioners to advertise is abortion—the very practice that petitioners are devoted to opposing. Pp. 6–7. (b) Although the licensed notice is content-based, the Ninth Circuit did not apply strict scrutiny because it concluded that the notice regulates “professional speech.” But this Court has never recognized“professional speech” as a separate category of speech subject to different rules. Speech is not unprotected merely because it is uttered by professionals. The Court has afforded less protection for professional speech in two circumstances—where a law requires professionals to disclose factual, noncontroversial information in their“commercial speech,” see, e.g., Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of Supreme Court of Ohio, 471 U. S. 626, 651, and where States regulate professional conduct that incidentally involves speech, see, e.g., Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Assn., 436 U. S. 447, 456. Neither line of precedents is implicated here. Pp. 7–14. (1) Unlike the rule in Zauderer, the licensed notice is not limited to“purely factual and uncontroversial i

FAQs

What is the FACT Act designed to do?

It regulates crisis pregnancy centers by requiring certain notices so California residents know their rights and what health care services are available, including distinctions between licensed and unlicensed providers.

Why did petitioners challenge the licensed notice under the First Amendment?

Petitioners alleged that the licensed notice compels them to communicate a particular message, including advertising abortion services, which they argued abridges protected freedom of speech.

How did the Court treat the argument that the notice regulated “professional speech”?

The Court stated it has never recognized “professional speech” as a separate category with different rules, and it evaluated the issue without relying on a reduced scrutiny framework based solely on professional status.

Sep 18, 2026

Uploaded by Rhys