NIFLA v. Harris, No. 16-55249 (9th Cir. 2016)Annotate this Case
Plaintiffs appealed the denial of their motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent the enforcement of the California Reproductive Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care, and Transparency Act, Assem. Bill No. 775, which requires that licensed pregnancy-related clinics disseminate a notice stating the existence of publicly-funded family-planning services, including contraception and abortion. The Act also requires that unlicensed clinics disseminate a notice stating that they are not licensed by the State of California. As a threshold matter, the court concluded that plaintiffs' claims are justiciable. On the merits, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the preliminary injunction where plaintiffs cannot demonstrate a likelihood of success on their First Amendment Free Speech claims. The court explained that, although the Act is a content-based regulation, it does not discriminate based on viewpoint. In this case, the Licensed Notice survives intermediate scrutiny and the Unlicensed Notice survives any level of scrutiny. The court also concluded that plaintiffs cannot demonstrate a likelihood of success on their First Amendment Free Exercise claim where the Act is a neutral law of general applicability, subject to only rational basis review. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on August 28, 2018.
- National Institute of Family and Life Advocates et al v. Harris et al, No. 3:2015cv02277 (S.D. Cal. Sep. 29, 2017)
- National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, No. 16-1140 (U.S. Jun. 26, 2018)