NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FAMILY AND LIFE ADVOCATES v. XAVIER BECERRA
Supreme Court of the United States, Thomas, June 26, 2018,
First Amendment – A State statute requiring anti-abortion pregnancy centers to advertise the availability of abortion services was a violation of their First Amendment right to freedom of speech.

(Concur – Kennedy with Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch –
(Dissent – Breyer with Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan –

5-4-4 opinion out of 9 justices…
The California State Legislature attempted to regulate “crisis pregnancy centers,” concerned that these centers were run by organizations whose stated goal is to oppose abortion and would thus ““aim to discourage and prevent women from seeking abortions.” To combat this, the California legislature passed the California Reproductive Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care, and Transparency Act (FACT Act).
Licensed centers were required to share a notice that states that “California has public programs that provide immediate free or low-cost access to comprehensive family planning services (including all FDA-approved methods of contraception), prenatal care, and abortion for eligible women.”
Unlicensed centers were required to provide a notice that “this facility is not licensed as a medical facility by the State of California and has no licensed medical provider who provides or directly supervises the provision of services.”
Several centers sued, claiming that the FACT Act violates their First Amendment rights.
When their suit was dismissed by lower courts, they petitioned the Supreme Court for review.

Held: The Supreme Court held that requiring anti-abortion centers to advertise abortion services was a violation of the First Amendment as there was no compelling State interest requiring it.

Freedom of Speech – Government conduct that targets speech based on its content is presumed to be unconstitutional unless justified by a narrowly tailored action done to serve a compelling interest.

Freedom of Speech – Government generally has “no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.”

From the Case: Requiring pregnancy crisis centers to “speak a particular message” with regard to abortion is a content-based restriction. “Here, for example, licensed clinics must provide a government-drafted script about the availability of state sponsored services, as well as contact information for how to obtain them. One of those services is abortion—the very practice that petitioners are devoted to opposing.” “California asserts a single interest to justify the licensed notice: providing low-income women with information about state-sponsored services. Assuming that this is a substantial state interest, the licensed notice is not sufficiently drawn to achieve it.”