Justices add anti-abortion counseling to free-speech lineupNovember 13, 2017 7:28pm

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court will hear a free speech challenge to a California law that targets anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers, adding to a term that is loaded with First Amendment disputes.

The justices said Monday they will review the centers' complaint that the new law, pushed by an abortion-rights group, forces them to provide information about abortion and other services.

Lower courts had allowed the law to take effect. Unlicensed centers also must inform clients of their status.

Two other new cases the justices added Monday also involve free-speech claims, by opponents of a Minnesota law banning any political attire at polling places and a Florida man who contends police arrested him in retaliation for voicing his views.

In those cases as well, courts rejected the challengers' constitutional claims.

First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams said in an email that "the court's decision to hear three cases in one term in which distinct First Amendment claims had been made and rejected in the lower courts certainly illustrates its intense focus on cases in which freedom of expression is center stage." The Constitution's First Amendment guarantees the right to free speech.

Even before Monday, the justices had major free speech cases on their agenda.

A fight over the politically motivated reshaping of electoral districts, a major case argued last month, could turn on whether the court finds that Republican-drawn districts in Wisconsin penalize Democratic voters because of their political beliefs, in violation of the First Amendment.

Next month, the court will hear the appeal of a Colorado baker who says he should not be compelled to create a cake for a same-sex wedding.

Early next year, the justices will take up an appeal from a government worker in Illinois who says his rights are violated by a state requirement that he pay fees to the labor union that represents public employees.

The concentration of cases fits into a broader pattern that has marked the court under Chief Justice John Roberts, including the bitterly divided Citizens United decision in 2010 and related cases that struck down campaign finance limits.

But other high-profile free speech cases during Roberts' tenure have joined the court's conservative and liberal justices.

"There's a strong bipartisan consensus on the Roberts court to uphold the First Amendment tradition of protecting hate speech," said Jeffrey Rosen, president of the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia. The justices generally support limits on speech only when there's a risk of imminent violence, Rosen said.

The crisis pregnancy center appeal appears to be one of those that is more likely to divide the justices, with Anthony Kennedy as perhaps the pivotal vote.

In urging the court to stay out of the case, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said the law was intended to make clear to the 700,000 women who become pregnant in the state each year that there is medical care, including abortion, available to people who can't afford it on their own. California said the information the centers must provide falls within well-accepted regulation of businesses and professionals.

But Michael Farris, president of the Alliance Defending Freedom legal group that is representing the centers, said government is picking winners and losers by requiring only centers that oppose abortion to display the information.

"The government should never be permitted to coerce speech it favors over speech it does not favor," Farris said.

A federal appeals court in New York struck down similar provisions of a New York City ordinance, although it upheld the requirement for unlicensed centers to say that they lack a license.

The free-speech issue has arisen in different contexts around the country.

In 2014, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Richmond, Virginia, struck down a North Carolina law that required abortion providers to show and describe an ultrasound to the pregnant woman. The court said the law is "ideological in intent" and violates doctors' free-speech rights.

In February, the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Florida could not prohibit doctors from talking about gun safety with their patients, upending parts of a 2011 state law. Under the law, doctors faced fines and the possible loss of their medical licenses for discussing guns with patients.

The abortion-rights group NARAL Pro-Choice California was a prime sponsor of the California law. NARAL estimates that 4,000 crisis pregnancy centers operate in the U.S.

The three new cases will be argued in February or March.

Page 1 of 1

More Stories Like This

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., arrives to speak to reporters following a closed-door strategy session on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Nov. 14, 2017. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
The Latest: Senate bill adds tax break for family leave
Agricultural groups challenge California weed-killer warningA coalition of national and Midwestern agricultural groups is suing to overturn a California declaration that the popular weed-killer Roundup can cause cancer
FILE - In this Sept. 17, 2017, file photo, police arrest a man as people protest a not guilty verdict in the trial of former St. Louis police officer Jason Stockley, in St. Louis. A federal judge has ruled that St. Louis police can't shut down non-violent protests or use chemical agents such as mace to punish people demonstrating against police conduct. The Wednesday, Nov. 15, 2017, order responds to an American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri lawsuit against St. Louis over police tactics during ongoing protests following the acquittal of the white former police officer in the 2011 killing of a black man. (AP Photo/Jeff Roberson, File)
Judge: St. Louis police can't spray chemicals on protesters
The Latest: Clay seeks investigation of St. Louis policeA Democratic congressman from St. Louis is asking the new U.S. attorney for eastern Missouri to launch an investigation of allegations of civil rights violations by St. Louis police officers during protests
House Speaker Paul Ryan of Wis., left, leads applause for House Ways and Means Chair Rep. Kevin Brady, R-Texas, along with Rep. Carlos Curbelo, R-Fla., and Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash., during a news conference following a vote on tax reform on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Nov. 16, 2017. Republicans passed a near $1.5 trillion package overhauling corporate and personal taxes through the House, edging President Donald Trump and the GOP toward their first big legislative triumph in a year in which they and their voters expected much more. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)
GOP closer to big win with House tax vote; Senate unclear
In this Oct. 18, 2017, file photo, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., the ranking member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, talks to reporters on Capitol Hill in Washington. Millions would forgo coverage if Congress repeals the unpopular requirement that Americans get health insurance, gambling with their own wellbeing and boosting premiums for others. Just as important, the drive by GOP senators to undo “Obamacare’s” coverage requirement fits in with Trump administration efforts to write regulations allowing for plans with limited benefits and lower premiums.  (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)
'Obamacare' mandate repeal would remake market for consumers
This component is currently unavailable.
AdChoices

Related Searches

Related Searches

AdChoices