Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-1140_5368.pdf
Page Number: 27.0

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

1 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 16–1140 
_________________ 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FAMILY AND LIFE 

ADVOCATES, DBA NIFLA, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. 

XAVIER BECERRA, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF 

CALIFORNIA, ET AL. 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 

APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
 

[June 26, 2018] 

JUSTICE  BREYER,  with  whom  JUSTICE  GINSBURG, 
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, and JUSTICE KAGAN join, dissenting. 
The petitioners ask us to consider whether two sections 
of a California statute violate the First Amendment.  The 
first  section  requires  licensed  medical  facilities  (that  pro-
vide women with assistance involving pregnancy or family
planning)  to  tell  those  women  where  they  might  obtain
help,  including  financial  help,  with  comprehensive  family
planning services, prenatal care, and abortion.  The second 
requires  unlicensed  facilities  offering  somewhat  similar 
services  to  make  clear  that  they  are  unlicensed.    In  my 
view both statutory sections are likely constitutional, and 
I dissent from the Court’s contrary conclusions. 

I 
The  first  statutory  section  applies  to  licensed  medical
facilities  dealing  with  pregnancy  and  which  also  provide
specific  services  such  as  prenatal  care,  contraception
counseling,  pregnancy  diagnosis,  or  abortion-related  ser-
vices.  Cal. Health & Safety Code Ann. §§123471(a), 1204, 
1206(h)  (West  2018)  (covering  “primary  care  clinics”  that
serve low-income women); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 22, §75026
(2018)  (“primary  care  clinics”  are  medical  facilities  that