Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-1140_5368.pdf
Page Number: 19.0

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

15 

Opinion of the Court 

“wildly  underinclusive.”  Entertainment  Merchants  Assn., 
supra, at 802.  The notice applies only to clinics that have
a  “primary  purpose”  of  “providing  family  planning  or 
pregnancy-related  services”  and  that  provide  two  of  six 
categories  of  specific  services.  §123471(a).  Other  clinics 
that  have  another  primary  purpose,  or  that  provide  only 
one  category  of  those  services,  also  serve  low-income
women and could educate them about the State’s services. 
According  to  the  legislative  record,  California  has  “nearly 
1,000 community clinics”—including “federally designated
community  health  centers,  migrant  health  centers,  rural 
health centers, and frontier health centers”—that “serv[e] 
more  than  5.6  million  patients  . . .  annually  through  over 
17  million  patient  encounters.”    App.  58.  But  most  of 
those  clinics  are  excluded  from  the  licensed  notice  re-
quirement  without  explanation.  Such  “[u]nderinclusive- 
ness raises serious doubts about whether the government
is  in  fact  pursuing  the  interest  it  invokes,  rather  than
disfavoring  a  particular  speaker  or  viewpoint.”    Enter-
tainment Merchants Assn., 564 U. S., at 802. 

The  FACT  Act  also  excludes,  without  explanation,  fed-
eral clinics and Family PACT providers from the licensed-
notice requirement.  California notes that those clinics can 
enroll  women  in  California’s  programs  themselves,  but 
California’s stated interest is informing women that these 
services  exist  in  the  first  place.  California  has  identified 
no  evidence  that  the  exempted  clinics  are  more  likely  to
provide this information than the covered clinics.  In fact, 
the exempted clinics have long been able to enroll women 
in California’s programs, but the FACT Act was premised 
on  the  notion  that  “thousands  of  women  remain  unaware 
of [them].”  Cal. Legis. Serv., §1(b).  If the goal is to max-
imize women’s awareness of these programs, then it would 
seem that California would ensure that the places that can
immediately  enroll  women  also  provide  this  information. 
The  FACT  Act’s  exemption  for  these  clinics,  which  serve