Defending Crisis Pregnancy Centers at the Supreme Court

Since 2010, the American Center for Law & Justice (ACLJ) has been defending the First Amendment rights of two non-profit organizations that operate numerous pro-life crisis pregnancy centers in New York City.

We filed a lawsuit challenging a city law (Local Law 17) that imposes burdensome disclaimer requirements upon pro-life centers that offer women assistance for religious and moral reasons. In 2011, a federal judge granted our clients an injunction in light of the law’s violation of our clients’ constitutional rights.

Earlier this year, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit agreed with the trial court concerning two of the law’s three disclaimer requirements. Yet, by a 2-1 vote, the panel upheld a third disclaimer requirement and concluded that a key provision of the law is not unconstitutionally vague.

The dissenting judge explained that the law “provid[es] a blank check to New York City officials to harass or threaten legitimate activity,” and also noted that “the City does not have a right to sweep all those who, for faith-based reasons, think that abortion is not the right choice in with those who would defraud or intentionally mislead women making this important and personal decision.”

In June, we filed a petition for a writ of certiorari asking the Supreme Court of the United States to take the case. The petition argued that “[t]he Second Circuit’s ruling gives government actors a green light to use speech mandates far more frequently than the First Amendment, and relevant decisions of this Court, allow.”

The City of New York filed a brief opposing our petition, and today we filed a reply brief that reiterated that “the Second Circuit’s decision conflicts with relevant decisions of this Court and courts of appeals by allowing the government to require non-profit, non-commercial actors to make verbal and written statements about what they do not do, without sufficient justification.”

We should learn in the coming weeks whether the Supreme Court will take this case.

In the meantime, the fight to defend life continues in many arenas. For instance, the ACLJ continues to litigate several cases on behalf of pro-life individuals and their businesses who strongly object, on religious grounds, to being forced to arrange and pay for insurance coverage of sterilizations, contraception, and abortion-inducing drugs as required by the HHS Mandate.

The ACLJ has a long history of defending the rights of the unborn and of those working to protect those rights, and we will continue to do so.