Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-1140_5368.pdf
Page Number: 41.0

Cite as:  585 U. S. ____ (2018) 

15 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

attorneys  disclose  in  their  advertisements  that  clients
might be liable for significant litigation costs even if their
lawsuits were unsuccessful.  471 U. S., at 650.  We refused 
to  apply  heightened  scrutiny,  instead  asking  whether  the
disclosure  requirements  were  “reasonably  related  to  the
State’s  interest  in  preventing  deception  of  consumers.” 
Id., at 651. 

The  majority  concludes  that  Zauderer  does  not  apply
because  the  disclosure  “in  no  way  relates  to  the  services
that licensed clinics provide.”  Ante, at 9.  But information 
about  state  resources  for  family  planning,  prenatal  care, 
and abortion is related to the services that licensed clinics 
provide.  These clinics provide counseling about contracep-
tion  (which  is  a  family-planning  service),  ultrasounds  or 
pregnancy  testing  (which  is  prenatal  care),  or  abortion. 
Cal. Health & Safety Code Ann. §123471(a).  The required
disclosure  is  related  to  the  clinic’s  services  because  it 
provides  information  about  state  resources  for  the  very
same services.  A patient who knows that she can receive
free prenatal care from the State may well prefer to forgo
the prenatal care offered at one of the clinics here.  And for 
those interested in family planning and abortion services,
information  about  such  alternatives  is  relevant  infor-
mation  to  patients  offered  prenatal  care,  just  as  Casey
considered  information  about  adoption  to  be  relevant  to
the abortion decision. 

Regardless, Zauderer is not so limited.  Zauderer turned 
on  the  “material  differences  between  disclosure  require-
ments and outright prohibitions on speech.”  471 U. S., at 
650.  A disclosure requirement does not prevent speakers
“from  conveying  information  to  the  public,”  but  “only 
require[s]  them  to  provide  somewhat  more  information
than  they  might  otherwise  be  inclined  to  present.”    Ibid.  
Where a State’s requirement to speak “purely factual and 
uncontroversial  information”  does  not  attempt  “to  ‘pre-
scribe  what  shall  be  orthodox  in  politics,  nationalism,