“I am confident that at least some members of the Supreme Court understood what was at stake here and understand that there is a layer of deception behind the actions of the anti-abortion centers,” she said in an interview.
Paul Sherman, a senior attorney for the Institute for Justice in Arlington, Va., said that based on the oral arguments, it appears likely California’s law will be struck down. Mr. Sherman coauthored the Institute for Justice’s amicus brief in support of NIFLA.
“Even some of the more liberal members of the court seemed to think that California’s law went too far,” he said in an interview. “The real question now seems to be whether the court will rule broadly that there are significant limitations on the government’s ability to regulate speech by crisis pregnancy centers, or whether it will rule more narrowly that this particular law subjected crisis pregnancy centers to unreasonable burdens that other speakers offering pregnancy counseling were not subject to.”A number of physician associations have weighed in on NIFLA v. Becerra. The American Medical Association issued a court brief in support of California and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Academy of Pediatrics joined several other medical associations in a similar brief. The American Association of Pro-Life Obstetrician and Gynecologists joined the Christian Medical Association and others to submit a brief in support of NIFLA.
The Supreme Court is expected to rule on the case by this summer.