InsideGov
Supreme Court · Decisions

National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra

The Court ruled that California's FACT Act notices, required of crisis pregnancy centers, likely violated the First Amendment by targeting speakers rather than speech.· AI-written

138 S. Ct. 2361 · No. 16-1140 · 2017 term · Roberts Court

Decided Jun 26, 2018 · argued Mar 20, 2018

Privacy · Abortion: including contraceptives

Struck down a state law

Majority opinion: Clarence Thomas

The voteMajorityDissent

5–45 in the majority, 4 in dissent

4 dissents (5–4)

Reversed and remanded. National Institute of Family and Life Advocates won.

What this ruling means

Reversed and remanded: the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit and sent the case back to that court for further proceedings that follow the Supreme Court’s ruling.

National Institute of Family and Life Advocates was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Won” means the Court gave that side the result it asked for.

From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.

Report a correction

Summary

The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.

National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, 585 U.S. 755 (2018), was a case before the Supreme Court of the United States addressing the constitutionality of California's FACT Act, which mandated that crisis pregnancy centers provide certain disclosures about state services. The law required that licensed centers post visible notices that other options for pregnancy, including abortion, are available from state-sponsored clinics. It also mandated that unlicensed centers post notice of their unlicensed status. The centers, typically run by Christian non-profit groups, challenged the act on the basis that it violated their free speech. After prior reviews in lower courts, the case was brought to the Supreme Court, asking "Whether the disclosures required by the California Reproductive FACT Act violate the protections set forth in the free speech clause of the First Amendment, applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment."

The Court ruled on June 26, 2018, in a 5–4 decision that the notices required by the FACT Act likely violate the First Amendment by targeting speakers rather than speech.

Read the full article on Wikipedia

Data notes

The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.

Report a correction

How the justices voted

Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 2017 term. Filled: the 5 in the majority. Hollow: the 4 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.

More liberalMore conservativeMedianSotomayorGinsburgBreyerKaganKennedyJ. RobertsGorsuchAlitoThomas

Majority(5)

Dissent(4)

Data notes

Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.

Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.

Report a correction

The parties

Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.

Petitioner
National Institute of Family and Life AdvocatesHealth organization or person, nursing home, medical clinic or laboratory, chiropractor
Respondent
BecerraState department or agency (California)
Reached the Court by
Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
Data notes

The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.

Report a correction

The law at issue

The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.

Provision
First Amendment (speech, press, and assembly)
Kind of law
Constitutional Amendment
Decided by
Judicial review (state level)
Struck down
A state law, as unconstitutional
Data notes

The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.

Report a correction

Timeline

What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.

  1. Jun 26, 2018DecidedDecided · Decided 5–4: reversed and remanded. National Institute of Family and Life Advocates won.
  2. Mar 20, 2018ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
  3. Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari).
  4. Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit: petition denied or appeal dismissed.
  5. Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the California Southern U.S. District Court.
Data notes

From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.

Report a correction

Other decisions on the same issue

39 other argued cases since 1946 on abortion, including contraceptives, newest first.

  1. Moyle v. United States144 S. Ct. 2015Jun 27, 2024 · 144 S. Ct. 2015Privacy6–36–3 band

  2. Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine602 U.S. 367Jun 13, 2024 · 602 U.S. 367Privacy9–0Unanimous band

  3. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health OrganizationLandmark · Birth control and abortion142 S. Ct. 2228Jun 24, 2022 · 142 S. Ct. 2228Privacy6–36–3 band

  4. June Medical Services LLC v. Russo140 S. Ct. 2103Jun 29, 2020 · 140 S. Ct. 2103Privacy5–45–4 band

  5. Whole Woman's Health v. HellerstedtLandmark · Birth control and abortion579 U.S. 582Jun 27, 2016 · 579 U.S. 582Privacy5–36–3 band

  6. McCullen v. Coakley573 U.S. 464Jun 26, 2014 · 573 U.S. 464Privacy9–0Unanimous band

  7. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General v. Leroy Carhart, et al.Landmark · Birth control and abortion550 U.S. 124Apr 18, 2007 · 550 U.S. 124Privacy5–45–4 band

  8. Joseph Scheidler, et al. v. National Organization for Women, Inc., et al.547 U.S. 9Feb 28, 2006 · 547 U.S. 9Privacy8–0Unanimous band
  9. Kelly A. Ayotte, Attorney General of New Hampshire v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, et al.546 U.S. 320Jan 18, 2006 · 546 U.S. 320Privacy9–0Unanimous band

  10. Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, Inc.537 U.S. 393Feb 26, 2003 · 537 U.S. 393Privacy8–18–1 band

  11. Don Stenberg, Attorney General of Nebraska, et al. v. Leroy CarhartLandmark · Birth control and abortion530 U.S. 914Jun 28, 2000 · 530 U.S. 914Privacy5–45–4 band

  12. Leila Jeanne Hill, Audrey Himmelmann, and Everitt W. Simpson, Jr. v. Colorado, et al.530 U.S. 703Jun 28, 2000 · 530 U.S. 703Privacy6–36–3 band

  13. Paul Schenck and Dwight Saunders v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York et al.519 U.S. 357Feb 19, 1997 · 519 U.S. 357Privacy6–36–3 band

  14. Judy Madsen, et al. v. Women's Health Center, Inc., et al.512 U.S. 753Jun 30, 1994 · 512 U.S. 753Privacy6–36–3 band

  15. National Organization for Women, Inc., etc., et al. v. Joseph Scheidler et al.510 U.S. 249Jan 24, 1994 · 510 U.S. 249Privacy9–0Unanimous band

  16. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania, et al. v. Robert P. Casey, et al., etc.Landmark · Birth control and abortion505 U.S. 833Jun 29, 1992 · 505 U.S. 833Privacy5–45–4 band

  17. Irving Rust, et al. v. Sullivan, Louis W., Secretary of Health and Human Services500 U.S. 173May 23, 1991 · 500 U.S. 173Privacy5–45–4 band

  18. Ohio v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health et al.497 U.S. 502Jun 25, 1990 · 497 U.S. 502Privacy6–36–3 band
  19. Hodgson et al. v. Minnesota et al.497 U.S. 417Jun 25, 1990 · 497 U.S. 417Privacy6–36–3 band
  20. Webster, Attorney General of Missouri, et al. v. Reproductive Health Services et al.492 U.S. 490Jul 3, 1989 · 492 U.S. 490Privacy5–45–4 band

  21. Neal F. Hartigan, Attorney General of the State of Illinois, etc., et al. v. David Zbaraz and Allan G. Charles etc.484 U.S. 171Dec 14, 1987 · 484 U.S. 171Privacy4–45–4 band
  22. Thornburgh, Governor of Pennsylvania, et al. v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists et al.476 U.S. 747Jun 11, 1986 · 476 U.S. 747Privacy5–45–4 band
  23. Simopoulos v. Virginia462 U.S. 506Jun 15, 1983 · 462 U.S. 506Privacy8–18–1 band
  24. Planned Parenthood Association of Kansas City, Missouri, Inc., et al. v. Ashcroft, Attorney General of Missouri, et al.462 U.S. 476Jun 15, 1983 · 462 U.S. 476Privacy5–45–4 band
  25. City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, Inc., et al.462 U.S. 416Jun 15, 1983 · 462 U.S. 416Privacy6–36–3 band

  26. H. L. v. Matheson, Governor of Utah, et al.450 U.S. 398Mar 23, 1981 · 450 U.S. 398Privacy6–36–3 band

  27. Williams et al. v. Zbaraz et al.448 U.S. 358Jun 30, 1980 · 448 U.S. 358Privacy5–45–4 band
  28. Harris, Secretary of Health and Human Services v. McRae et al.448 U.S. 297Jun 30, 1980 · 448 U.S. 297Privacy5–45–4 band

  29. Bellotti, Attorney General of Massachusetts, et al. v. Baird et al.443 U.S. 622Jul 2, 1979 · 443 U.S. 622Privacy8–18–1 band

  30. Colautti, Secretary of Welfare of Pennsylvania, et al. v. Franklin et al.439 U.S. 379Jan 9, 1979 · 439 U.S. 379Privacy6–36–3 band

  31. Poelker, Mayor of St. Louis, et al. v. Doe432 U.S. 519Jun 20, 1977 · 432 U.S. 519Privacy6–36–3 band
  32. Maher, Commissioner of Social Services of Connecticut v. Roe et al.432 U.S. 464Jun 20, 1977 · 432 U.S. 464Privacy6–36–3 band

  33. Beal, Secretary, Department of Public Welfare of Pennsylvania, et al. v. Doe et al.432 U.S. 438Jun 20, 1977 · 432 U.S. 438Privacy6–36–3 band

  34. Carey, Governor of New York, et al. v. Population Services International et al.Landmark · Birth control and abortion431 U.S. 678Jun 9, 1977 · 431 U.S. 678Privacy7–27–2 band

  35. Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri et al. v. Danforth, Attorney General of Missouri, et al.428 U.S. 52Jul 1, 1976 · 428 U.S. 52Privacy5–45–4 band

  36. Doe et al. v. Bolton, Attorney General of Georgia, et al.410 U.S. 179Jan 22, 1973 · 410 U.S. 179Privacy7–27–2 band

  37. Roe et al. v. Wade, District Attorney of Dallas CountyLandmark · Birth control and abortion410 U.S. 113Jan 22, 1973 · 410 U.S. 113Privacy7–27–2 band

  38. Eisenstadt, Sheriff v. BairdLandmark · Birth control and abortion405 U.S. 438Mar 22, 1972 · 405 U.S. 438Privacy6–18–1 band

  39. United States v. Vuitch402 U.S. 62Apr 21, 1971 · 402 U.S. 62Privacy5–45–4 band

Data notes

Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.

Report a correction

Official record

Read the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.