October Term 2017 · Docket 16-1140
Can California force pro-life centers to direct patients to abortion services?
Pro-life centers argue California targets them with mandatory referrals. The state claims it requires truthful disclosures.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Mr. Farris argued California targeted pro-life centers with onerous rules.
Mr. Wall argued the First Amendment permits states to require truthful disclosures.
Mr. Klein argued the disclosure promotes informed choice like in Casey.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 32-12 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 32-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 22-28 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 22-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 31-32 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 31-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 6-7 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 6-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 18-33 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 18-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 38, lines 16-33 — Transcript, file page 38, lines 16-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 17-33 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 17-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 34-16 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 34-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 8-16 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 8-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 32-33 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 32-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 36-7 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 36-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 67, lines 36-6 — Transcript, file page 67, lines 36-6
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 7-8 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 7-8
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 22-26 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 22-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 28-33 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 28-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 16-22 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 16-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 33-23 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 33-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 36-25 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 36-25
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
California law requires licensed pro-life centers to direct patients to abortion services. It also imposes strict advertising rules on unlicensed centers. The state exempts other medical providers from these rules. the sides that brought the case claim this targets their speech. The state argues it serves public health interests.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 18-33 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 18-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 38, lines 16-33 — Transcript, file page 38, lines 16-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 17-33 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 17-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 67, lines 36-6 — Transcript, file page 67, lines 36-6
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on March 20, 2018.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 8-16 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 8-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 7-8 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 7-8
What each side wants
the sides that brought the case want the Court to strike down the mandatory referral requirement.
The state wants the Court to uphold the disclosure law.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 18-33 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 18-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 38, lines 16-33 — Transcript, file page 38, lines 16-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 17-33 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 17-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 67, lines 36-6 — Transcript, file page 67, lines 36-6
What each side says
the sides that brought the case argue the law targets pro-life centers and compels speech.
The state argues the First Amendment allows truthful factual disclosures.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 18-33 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 18-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 38, lines 16-33 — Transcript, file page 38, lines 16-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 17-33 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 17-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 67, lines 36-6 — Transcript, file page 67, lines 36-6
What the justices asked
Justice Alito asked if a law requiring all providers to list options would be valid.
Justice Ginsburg asked if abortion providers must offer assistance for carrying a pregnancy to term.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 32-12 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 32-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 22-28 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 22-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 31-32 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 31-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 6-7 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 6-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 34-16 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 34-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 32-33 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 32-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 36-7 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 36-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 7-8 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 7-8
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 22-26 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 22-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 28-33 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 28-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 16-22 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 16-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 33-23 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 33-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 36-25 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 36-25
Why it matters
This case defines the limits of state power to compel speech. It affects how states regulate medical and non-medical providers. It determines whether targeted disclosures violate constitutional rights. The outcome shapes future regulations on patient information.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 18-33 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 18-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 38, lines 16-33 — Transcript, file page 38, lines 16-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 17-33 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 17-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 67, lines 36-6 — Transcript, file page 67, lines 36-6
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 32-12 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 32-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 22-28 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 22-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 31-32 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 31-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 6-7 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 6-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 34-16 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 34-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 8-16 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 8-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 32-33 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 32-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 36-7 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 36-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 7-8 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 7-8
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 22-26 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 22-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 28-33 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 28-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 16-22 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 16-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 33-23 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 33-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 36-25 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 36-25
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 18-33 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 18-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 38, lines 16-33 — Transcript, file page 38, lines 16-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 17-33 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 17-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 67, lines 36-6 — Transcript, file page 67, lines 36-6
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 18-33 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 18-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 38, lines 16-33 — Transcript, file page 38, lines 16-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 17-33 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 17-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 67, lines 36-6 — Transcript, file page 67, lines 36-6
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.