National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra

Background

Two crisis pregnancy centers (one licensed, one unlicensed) and an organization sued over a California law that required certain clinics to post government-written notices. Licensed clinics had to tell patients that California offers free or low-cost services, including abortion, with a phone number; unlicensed clinics had to post large, prominent disclaimers saying they were not state-licensed and include the notice in advertising. Lower courts denied a preliminary injunction, and the Ninth Circuit upheld the law before the Supreme Court reviewed the case.

Reasoning

The majority held that the licensed notice is content-based compelled speech and rejected the idea that “professional speech” is a separate, weaker category. The Court found the licensed notice likely unconstitutional because it forces centers to promote state-sponsored services and is underinclusive compared with other ways the State could inform the public. The Court also found the unlicensed notice unjustified and unduly burdensome even under a lenient test, because the State offered only hypothetical justifications and the mandated, government-scripted wording would chill protected speech.

Real world impact

The decision reverses the Ninth Circuit and prevents California from enforcing both kinds of mandatory notices as written. It limits states’ authority to single out certain clinics for government-scripted messages and pushes governments toward broader public-information efforts or less burdensome rules. The Court remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this ruling.

Dissents or concurrances

A concurring Justice warned the law shows possible viewpoint discrimination against pro-life centers. A dissenting opinion argued the disclosures resemble informed-consent rules the Court has upheld and would have left the law in place.