Q: This question is in regards to the Supreme Court Case "National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra."
The way Justice Thomas phrased his opinion is that the petitioners in the case were "likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the FACT Act violates the First Amendment." What does it mean that the petitioners were "likely to succeed?" Did the petitioners succeed in their case at the Supreme Court or did they not? Either the FACT Act violates the First Amendment or it doesn't. Why didn't the Court just simply state that the FACT Act violates the first amendment? It seems like the justices side-stepped the question. So who truly won in this case (and how do you know that they won)?
A: Petitioners in licensed clinic won. The District Court denied their motion for a preliminary injunction, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed. Holding that petitioners could not show a likelihood of success on the merits, the trial court concluded that the licensed notice survived a lower level of scrutiny applicable to regulations of “professional speech,” and that the unlicensed notice satisfied any level of scrutiny.
The SCOTUS held:
1. The licensed notice likely violates the First Amendment.
Justia Ask a Lawyer is a forum for consumers to get answers to basic legal questions. Any information sent through Justia Ask a Lawyer is not secure and is done so on a non-confidential basis only.
The use of this website to ask questions or receive answers does not create an attorney–client relationship between you and Justia, or between you and any attorney who receives your information or responds to your questions, nor is it intended to create such a relationship. Additionally, no responses on this forum constitute legal advice, which must be tailored to the specific circumstances of each case. You should not act upon information provided in Justia Ask a Lawyer without seeking professional counsel from an attorney admitted or authorized to practice in your jurisdiction. Justia assumes no responsibility to any person who relies on information contained on or received through this site and disclaims all liability in respect to such information.
Justia cannot guarantee that the information on this website (including any legal information provided by an attorney through this service) is accurate, complete, or up-to-date. While we intend to make every attempt to keep the information on this site current, the owners of and contributors to this site make no claims, promises or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness or adequacy of the information contained in or linked to from this site.