National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, et al., No. 16-1140 (S. Ct.). Oral argument scheduled for March 20, 2018.
California has enacted legislation intended to notify women of the availability of aid in accessing contraception or abortion services. Article 2.7, Reproductive Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care, and Transparency (FACT) Act, 123470 to 123473. California Code (2018 Edition). The statute appears to apply widely. However, through a series of exemptions, the FACT Act actually requires only that pregnancy centers that are not medically licensed by the state provide notice of that status to clients and that pregnancy centers that do not offer abortion provide notice to clients about available services and how to access those services.
Pregnancy centers and their advocates are challenging the FACT Act in the United States Supreme Court, demanding that the Court hold the FACT Act unconstitutional in violation of the First Amendment as it, in their view, compels speech contrary to the purpose of the pregnancy centers.. The pregnancy centers sense that they have been compelled to advertise for that which they find contrary to conscience. California and its supporters demur, arguing, among other matters, that the FACT Act is a neutral generally applicable law deserving of no special constitutional protection even if it imposes a minor burden in compliance with its provisions. Moreover, this general law does not discriminate on the basis of pregnancy center’s points of view concerning abortion. In the state’s view, petitioners are not hampered in their ability to speak nor does the provision of the notice the state requires constitute an endorsement.
Both parties contest the proper standard of judicial review: Petitioners argue strict scrutiny is required, while the state argues a more lenient standard ought to apply, as in the state’s view, the act may be analogized to state regulation of commercial speech.
Petitioners decry what they foresee as adverse consequence if a lesser standard of review is adopted: petitioners see this as opening the door state regulation of speech in unprecedented, and unwelcome, forms. The state’s supporters argue that the public must know and in particular pregnant women must be made aware, of choices during pregnancy, particularly as, in their view, pregnancy centers are not clear in their purposes, and that the time-sensitive results of not being fully informed about choices can be life altering.
If the instant case were not challenging enough, amici remind the court that similar issues are percolating in lower federal and in state courts. Whether the Supreme Court will be impressed by a recent Fourth Circuit opinion disfavoring notice requirements similar to those in issue here is impossible to predict. The Court has no obligation to follow the reasoning of an inferior court yet neither need the Court ignore a determination that does not square with the Ninth Circuit opinion that paved the way for the Supreme Court to grant certiorari in this case.
Contentiousness concerning reproductive issues does not appear to have diminished in the decades following the Supreme Court’s recognition of privacy interests attaching to such decisions in Griswold v. Connecticut 381 U.S. 479 (1965) and Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973 ). Time appears only to have amplified such concerns, perhaps not without good cause, as technology has evolved to aid in health choices but with it has come new dimensions of choices to be encountered at the beginning and end of life. Interstitial legal arguments over enunciated and implied First Amendment guarantees have ensued, and continue. The professionalization of views on reproductive matters is readily apparent upon even a cursory review of the number of advocacy organizations submitting as amici in this case.
There is little doubt that oral argument will be lively. In anticipation thereof, the merits briefs are linked below. An overview of amicus submissions is also attached. The principal briefs were obtained through ScotusBlog, a site without which there would be general unawareness of developments at the Supreme Court. The overview of amicus submissions is Just Lawful Blog’s own.
20180108123359506_2018.01.08 NIFLAvB Brief of Petitioners FINAL
20180108124518914_2018.01.08 NIFLAvB Joint Appendix FINAL
20180116184704477_16-1140npacUnitedStates
20180220120759477_16-1140 Brief For Respondent
20180220155129758_2018.02.20.ussc.16-1140.jak.state_resp_merits_brief
20180313112437769_2018.03.13 NIFLAvB MERITS Reply Brief
Just Lawful 