Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-1140_5368.pdf
Page Number: 28

2 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FAMILY AND 
LIFE ADVOCATES v. BECERRA
 
BREYER, J., dissenting 

provide “services for the care and treatment of patients for
whom the clinic accepts responsibility” with the “direction
or  supervision”  of  each  “service”  undertaken  “by  a  person 
licensed, certified or registered to provide such service”). 

The  statute  requires  these  facilities  to  post  a  notice  in 

their waiting rooms telling their patients: 

“California has public programs that provide immedi-
ate  free  or  low-cost  access  to  comprehensive  family 
planning  services  (including  all  FDA-approved  meth-
ods  of  contraception),  prenatal  care,  and  abortion  for 
eligible  women.  To  determine  whether  you  qualify,
contact  the  county  social  services  office  at  [insert  the 
telephone number].”  §123472(a)(1). 

The  petitioners  here,  a  group  of  covered  medical  facili-
ties  that  object  to  abortion  for  religious  reasons,  brought 
this case seeking an injunction against enforcement of the 
California  Reproductive  Freedom,  Accountability,  Com-
prehensive  Care,  and  Transparency  Act  on  the  ground 
that  it  violates  the  First  Amendment  on  its  face.    The 
District  Court  denied  a  preliminary  injunction,  and  the 
Court of Appeals affirmed.  The majority now reverses the 
Court  of  Appeals  on  the  ground  that  the  petitioners  have
shown  a  likelihood  of  success  on  the  merits,  i.e.,  that  the 
statute  likely  violates  the  petitioners’  free  speech  rights 
and is unconstitutional on its face. 

A 
Before turning to the specific law before us, I focus upon
the  general  interpretation  of  the  First  Amendment  that
the  majority  says  it  applies.  It  applies  heightened  scru- 
tiny  to  the  Act  because  the  Act,  in  its  view,  is  “content
based.”  Ante, at 6–7.  “By compelling individuals to speak 
a  particular  message,”  it  adds,  “such  notices  ‘alte[r]  the
content  of  [their]  speech.’ ”    Ante,  at  7  (quoting  Riley  v. 
National Federation of Blind of N. C., Inc., 487 U. S. 781,