Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-1140_5368.pdf
Page Number: 25.0

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

1 

KENNEDY, J., concurring 

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  KENNEDY,  with  whom  THE  CHIEF  JUSTICE, 

JUSTICE ALITO, and JUSTICE GORSUCH join, concurring. 

I join the Court’s opinion in all respects.   
This  separate  writing  seeks  to  underscore  that  the
apparent  viewpoint  discrimination  here  is  a  matter  of 
serious  constitutional  concern.  See  ante,  at  6,  n. 2.    The 
Court, in my view, is correct not to reach this question.  It 
was  not  sufficiently  developed,  and  the  rationale  for  the
Court’s  decision  today  suffices  to  resolve  the  case.    And 
had  the  Court’s  analysis  been  confined  to  viewpoint  dis-
crimination,  some  legislators  might  have  inferred  that  if 
the  law  were  reenacted  with  a  broader  base  and  broader 
coverage it then would be upheld.

It does appear that viewpoint discrimination is inherent 
in  the  design  and  structure  of  this  Act.    This  law  is  a 
paradigmatic  example  of  the  serious  threat  presented 
when government seeks to impose its own message in the
place  of  individual  speech,  thought,  and  expression.  For 
here  the  State  requires  primarily  pro-life  pregnancy  cen-
ters  to  promote  the  State’s  own  preferred  message  adver-
tising  abortions.  This  compels  individuals  to  contradict
their  most  deeply  held  beliefs,  beliefs  grounded  in  basic
philosophical, ethical, or religious precepts, or all of these.