Civil and Human Rights

RELEASE: Justices Threaten to Invalidate Important California Law that Ensures Low-Income People Have Critical Information They Need

Disclosure requirements are pervasive in the law. These rules ensure that rights guaranteed by our elected representatives are actually enjoyed by the people they are designed to protect.

WASHINGTON—Following oral argument in NIFLA v. Becerra—a First Amendment free speech challenge to California’s FACT Act, which requires licensed and unlicensed reproductive health centers to disclose factual information to ensure that people can obtain the health care they need—Constitutional Accountability Center attorneys, who were at the Court this morning, issued the following reaction:

CAC Civil Rights Director David Gans said, “NIFLA’s attorney concluded his argument urging the Justices not to permit states to ‘politicize medicine.’ If the Justices agree, they could open up an avenue to strike down laws like the Act challenged here, as well as state anti-abortion laws.”

“During this morning’s argument,” Gans added, “the Justices spent a lot of time discussing whether there are any meaningful differences between the challenged law and those targeting abortion providers. Despite efforts to suggest that states have broader authority to target abortion providers, none of the Justices or advocates offered any convincing basis for doing so. Everyone seemed to agree with Justice Breyer that ‘what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.’”

CAC Chief Counsel Brianne Gorod continued, “As many of the Justices noted this morning, the Court has upheld neutral, factual disclosure requirements in Planned Parenthood v. Casey and other cases. Indeed, disclosure requirements are pervasive in the law. These rules ensure that rights guaranteed by our elected representatives are actually enjoyed by the people they are designed to protect. There is no basis for facially invalidating the disclosure requirements in this California law, especially given the absence of a detailed factual record below.”

#

Resources:

CAC brief on behalf of 101 Members of Congress in NIFLA v. Becerra: https://www.theusconstitution.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/NIFLA-v.-Becerra-Amicus-Brief-FINAL.pdf

Brianne Gorod on Newseum panel discussing NIFLA v. Becerra, broadcast on C-SPAN, March 16, 2018: https://www.c-span.org/video/?442670-1/alliance-defending-freedom-previews-upcoming-supreme-court-case

NIFLA v. Becerra: The Conservative Attack on Disclosure,” David Gans, Take Care, March 15, 2018: https://takecareblog.com/blog/nifla-v-becerra-the-conservative-attack-on-disclosure

“The First Amendment Case That Could Upend Abortion Law,” The Intercept (Rachel M. Cohen), November 27, 2017: https://theintercept.com/2017/11/27/the-first-amendment-case-that-could-upend-abortion-law/

##

Now in our tenth year, Constitutional Accountability Center is a think tank, public interest law firm, and action center dedicated to fulfilling the progressive promise of the Constitution’s text and history. Visit the new CAC website at www.theusconstitution.org

###

More from Civil and Human Rights

Civil and Human Rights
June 20, 2025

CAC Release: Purporting to Effectuate “Pure Textualism,” Supreme Court Guts ADA’s Protections for Retirees, Neglecting Critical Statutory Context and History

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in Stanley v. City of...
Civil and Human Rights
June 18, 2025

CAC Release: Supreme Court’s Conservative Supermajority Allows Tennessee to Flout Constitution’s Equal Protection Guarantee

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in United States v. Skrmetti,...
Civil and Human Rights
June 25, 2025

Debate over transgender rights grows more fraught in new Trump era

The Christian Science Monitor
Actions by the Trump administration have been pushing back on transgender inclusion, amid sharp public...
Civil and Human Rights
March 19, 2025

Viewpoint: The North Dakota Constitution’s protections include reproductive autonomy

North Dakota's Grand Forks Herald
The Court should live up to North Dakota’s history as a state with some of...
By: Nargis Aslami
Civil and Human Rights
February 27, 2025

What You Should Know About the Right to Protection in the Trump Era

Washington Monthly
The 14th Amendment was meant to enforce the laws equally, not put vulnerable populations in...
By: David H. Gans
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington

Shilling v. Trump

In Shilling v. Trump, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington considered whether Trump’s Executive Order categorically barring transgender persons from serving in the military is unconstitutional.