National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra

The National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA), representing pro-life crisis pregnancy centers, challenged California's Reproductive FACT Act. The law mandated that licensed centers post notices informing patients about the availability of state-funded free or low-cost abortion services, and required unlicensed centers to disclose that they lacked medical licenses. NIFLA argued the Act violated the First Amendment by compelling speech. The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled that the notice requirements for licensed centers were likely unconstitutional content-based speech regulations that did not survive strict scrutiny. The unlicensed center requirement also likely failed even under a more relaxed standard. The Court reversed the Ninth Circuit's denial of a preliminary injunction, holding that NIFLA was likely to succeed on the merits of its free speech claim.

The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision, holding 5-4 that the petitioners were likely to succeed in their First Amendment challenge. The Court found the Act's notice requirements likely unconstitutional, granted a preliminary injunction, and remanded the case.

Whether the California Reproductive FACT Act's requirements for crisis pregnancy centers to disseminate specific state-mandated notices about abortion services and licensing status violate the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.

The ruling reinforced strict scrutiny for content-based compelled speech regulations, shielding anti-abortion pregnancy centers from state-mandated abortion notices. It significantly limited government power to compel professional and commercial speech, influencing the abortion debate and broader First Amendment jurisprudence.