Summary
California’s so-called Reproductive FACT Act compelled pro-life pregnancy care centers to post a conspicuous sign in their waiting rooms saying that California provides free or low-cost abortion, as well as providing a number to call for abortion referrals. The law also forced non-medical pregnancy centers to add large disclosures about their non-medical status in all advertisements, wrongly implying that they were unqualified to provide charitable services. The National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA), a religious nonprofit comprising hundreds of member pregnancy centers from across the nation (including California), challenged this law. ADF represented them all the way to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that NIFLA was likely to win its claim that the government cannot compel pro-life groups and individuals to express a message that conflicts with their beliefs. This led to a permanent injunction that prevented California from enforcing the unconstitutional law. No one should be forced by the government to express a message that violates their convictions, especially on deeply divisive subjects such as abortion.
Case timeline
- October 2015: California passed AB 775, forcing pro-life pregnancy centers to advertise abortion. Shortly after, ADF attorneys filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of NIFLA and two individual pregnancy centers.
- February 2016: The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California denied ADF attorneys’ request for a preliminary injunction that would have temporarily stopped California from enforcing the law against pregnancy centers. ADF attorneys appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.
- October 2016: The 9th Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision, keeping the unconstitutional law in place.
- March 2017: ADF attorneys appealed NIFLA’s case to the Supreme Court.
- November 2017: The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
- June 2018: In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled NIFLA was likely to win its claim that the government could not force pro-life pregnancy centers to advertise abortion. The Court overturned California’s law, allowing these pregnancy centers to continue working to protect life.









Commentary
The case for pre-abortion ultrasound laws – Washington Examiner
Anne O'Connor
January 08, 2020
California’s law targeting pregnancy centers was meant for harm—but God used it for good
Heidi Matzke
December 04, 2018
Compelled speech in Masterpiece CakeshopWhat the Supreme Court’s June 2018 decisions tell us about the unresolved questions
Jim Campbell
September 24, 2018
NIFLA Decision Affirms First Amendment’s Purpose: Protect Minority Viewpoints – JURIST – Commentary – Legal News & Commentary
Krista Grobelny
July 15, 2018
SCOTUS NIFLA decision gives women the help they need and the hope they deserve
Jay Hobbs
July 02, 2018
Why All Americans Can Celebrate The Supreme Court Ruling On Abortion
Jessica Prol Smith
June 28, 2018
Supreme CourtPeople lose when the government decides which ideas prevail
Kevin Theriot
June 27, 2018
Supreme Court’s NIFLA decisionOur government can’t force you to share a message you don’t agree with
Elissa Graves
June 27, 2018
We should all celebrate the Supreme Court ruling on compelled speech, regardless of our views on abortion – Los Angeles Times
Michael Farris
June 27, 2018
Supreme Court ruling means it’s still legal to be pro-life and help expectant mothers – Washington Examiner
Denise Burke
June 26, 2018
Think the Supreme Court is done with free speech post-Masterpiece? Think again.
Jay Hobbs
June 21, 2018
Government should not force private pregnancy centers to be at odds with their mission – San Diego Union-Tribune
Denise Harle
April 12, 2018
Denise Burke Think the Supreme Court is done with free speech post-Masterpiece? Think again. (Daily Wire, 2018-06-21) Jay Hobbs Government should not force private pregnancy centers to be at odds with their mission (San Diego Union-Tribune, 2018-04-12) De
Jim Campbell
March 23, 2018
Thwarting pro-life pregnancy centers
Kristen Waggoner
March 20, 2018
Supreme Court should not allow California to force pro-life pregnancy centers to promote abortion | Fox News
Michael Farris
March 20, 2018
Pro-life pregnancy centers should not have to advertise abortion
Thomas Glessner
March 20, 2018
Pregnancy centers shouldn’t have to advertise for abortions. I’m glad mine didn’t.
Maggie Amos
March 20, 2018
Pro-life pregnancy centers shouldn’t be forced to promote abortion
Michael Farris
March 20, 2018
Supreme Court must act to protect free speech on subject of abortion
James Gottry
March 20, 2018
Pro-life centers have speech, too
James Gottry
March 19, 2018
Supreme Court should uphold free speech of pro-life pregnancy centers
Elissa Graves
March 13, 2018
Should This Pregnancy Clinic Be Forced to Advertise Abortion?
Sarah Kramer
February 22, 2018
The greedy abortion industry vilifies pro-life centers
Anne O'Connor
February 15, 2018
: Upcoming Supreme Court case reveals California’s slapshot at pro-life speech rights
Kevin Theriot
January 26, 2018
What if March for Life participants were forced to advertise for Planned Parenthood?
James Gottry
January 18, 2018
Supreme Court to decide if FACT Act hacks away at First Amendment
James Gottry
November 16, 2017
Supreme Court should strike down California’s forced-advertising law
Kevin Theriot
April 03, 2017