California passed a law that forced licensed non-profit pro-life groups to include information about abortion services on their premises. Today the Supreme court ruled in NIFLA v. Becerra that this creates a burden on protected speech.
It imposes a government-scripted, speaker-based disclosure requirement that is wholly disconnected from the State’s informational interest. It requires covered facilities to post California’s precise notice, no matter what the facilities say on site or in their advertisements. And it covers a curiously narrow subset of speakers: those that primarily provide pregnancy-related services, but not those that provide, e.g., nonprescription birth control. Such speaker-based laws run the risk that “the State has left unburdened those speakers whose messages are in accord with its own views.” Sorrell, supra, at 580. For these reasons, the unlicensed notice does not satisfy Zauderer, assuming that standard applies. Pp. 17–20. 839 F. 3d 823, reversed and remanded.
We’ll have more on this later as well after someone has time to read the decision.
