(Washington, DC) - The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), which represents two non-profit organizations that operate numerous pro-life crisis pregnancy centers in New York City, today asked the U.S. Supreme Court to take a case in which a federal appeals court has upheld portions of a New York City law that targets pro-life pregnancy centers, making it difficult for them to exercise their First Amendment rights.
The ACLJ filed suit challenging the New York City law that imposes burdensome disclaimer requirements upon crisis pregnancy centers - requirements not required of other centers. In January, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit agreed with the trial court in holding that two of the law’s three disclaimer requirements violate our clients’ First Amendment rights. However, by a 2-1 vote, the panel also upheld a third disclaimer requirement and concluded that the law’s definition of “pregnancy services center” is not unconstitutionally vague.
“This is a critically important case that focuses on the constitutionally-protected rights of pro-life advocates,” said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ. “To permit a law to remain in place that imposes burdensome requirements on crisis pregnancy centers is not only unacceptable but unconstitutional as well. We’re hopeful the high court will take the case and put an end to the efforts to silence pro-life pregnancy centers.”
The ACLJ today filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of The Evergreen Association, Inc. and Life Center of New York, Inc. – two non-profit organizations that operate numerous pro-life crisis pregnancy centers in New York City. The case is Evergreen v. City of New York.
The ACLJ urged the high court to take the case “. . . to correct the Second Circuit’s legal errors that have jeopardized the freedom of speech of individuals and groups. . .”
The ACLJ also contends the law, which places restrictions only on pro-life crisis pregnancy centers, violates the constitutional protections afforded to individuals and groups by putting the government in charge of regulating speech. If left unchecked, the ACLJ contends the law “. . . opens a jurisprudential Pandora’s Box.”
“The 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 petition argues.
Led by Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow, the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), focusing on constitutional law, is based in Washington, D.C.
Earlier this year, I wrote about the significant pro-life victory when President Trump reinstated Ronald Reagan’s Mexico City Policy to prohibit the use of U.S. taxpayer money in foreign aid to organizations that either fund or promote abortions around the world. President Trump did exactly what...
How could France censor a pro-life video message of people with Down Syndrome talking about how much they love life and love their mothers? Our European affiliate, the European Centre for Law and Justice (ECLJ), has just filed a legal application with the European Court of Human Rights to challenge...
Over the last several years, many state legislatures around the nation have taken important steps towards upholding their mandates to protect the most vulnerable of their citizenry. Sixteen states have passed laws that ban abortions at the point at which the unborn baby with a heartbeat can feel...
Today the American Center for Law & Justice (ACLJ), along with its co-counsel, filed a petition with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals seeking rehearing in the appeal involving the undercover investigation of the abortion industry conducted by the Center for Medical Progress (CMP). In particular,