Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-1140_5368.pdf
Page Number: 9.0

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

5 

Opinion of the Court 

fers  to  provide  prenatal  sonography,  pregnancy  tests,
or pregnancy options counseling. 

“(4)  The  facility  has  staff  or  volunteers  who  collect
health information from clients.”  Ibid. 

Clinics operated by the United States and licensed primary
care  clinics  enrolled  in  Medi-Cal  and  Family  PACT  are 
excluded.  §123471(c).

Unlicensed  covered  facilities  must  provide  a  government-
drafted  notice  stating  that  “[t]his  facility  is  not  li- 
censed as a medical facility by the State of California and 
has no licensed medical provider  who provides or directly 
supervises the provision of services.”  Cal. Health & Safety 
Code Ann. §123472(b)(1).  This notice must be provided on
site  and  in  all  advertising  materials.    §§123472(b)(2),  (3).
Onsite,  the  notice  must  be  posted  “conspicuously”  at  the
entrance  of  the  facility  and  in  at  least  one  waiting  area. 
§123472(b)(2).  It must be “at least 8.5 inches by 11 inches
and written in no less than 48-point type.”  Ibid.  In adver-
tisements,  the  notice  must  be  in  the  same  size  or  larger
font  than  the  surrounding  text,  or  otherwise  set  off  in  a 
way  that  draws  attention  to  it.    §123472(b)(3).    Like  the 
licensed  notice,  the  unlicensed  notice  must  be  in  English
and  any  additional  languages  specified  by  state  law. 
§123471(b).  Its stated purpose is to ensure “that pregnant 
women in California know when they are getting medical 
care from licensed professionals.”  Cal. Legis. Serv., §1(e). 

B 

After  the  Governor  of  California  signed  the  FACT  Act, 
petitioners—a  licensed  pregnancy  center,  an  unlicensed 
pregnancy  center,  and  an  organization  composed  of  crisis
pregnancy  centers—filed  this  suit.    Petitioners  alleged
that  the  licensed  and  unlicensed notices  abridge  the  free-
dom  of  speech  protected  by  the  First  Amendment.    The 
District  Court  denied  their  motion  for  a  preliminary