Justices appear skeptical of California’s abortion speech law

NIFLA attorney Michael Farris did not have a chance to respond to Justice Sotomayor’s question, but he argued throughout the session that California’s law takes an unjust aim at “pro-life pregnancy centers” by compelling licensed centers to point the way to an abortion and imposing onerous advertising rules on unlicensed centers.

In the end, both sides faced difficult questions from the justices about complex constitutional issues, said Heather Shumaker, an attorney for the National Women’s Law Center in Washington, who attended the oral arguments. The law center joined an amicus brief in the case in support of California.

Ms. Shumaker noted that an interesting point raised by some justices, including Associate Justice Stephen Breyer, was the lack of evidence justices had to analyze because the case never went to trial. The issue could mean the Supreme Court ultimately remands the case to a trial court for more fact finding, she said.

However, Ms. Shumaker said her overall impression was that the arguments made clear the strong reasoning behind California’s law and its importance.