National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra
U.S. Supreme Court · decided June 26, 2018 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Decided
- June 26, 2018
- Term
- October Term 2017
- Vote
- 5–4
- Majority author
- Justice Thomas
- Issue area
- Privacy
- Disposition
- Reversed and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
- Constitutional ruling
- State/territorial law held unconstitutional
Opinion excerpt
(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 cri- sis pregnancy centers—pro-life centers that offer pregnancy-related services. The FACT Act requires clinics that primarily serve preg- nant 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 pro- vide medical…
Excerpt of a 98,035-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.