Justice Thomas writes another 5-4 decision today recasting a California consumer protection regulation—which required so-called crisis pregnancy centers to disclose to women that they don’t provide medical services—as a first amendment violation. supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf…
Heretofore, there’s been no First Amendment impediment to a state seeking to protect its citizens by requiring accurate labeling and notices (e.g. “cigarettes cause cancer”). As @ugarles pointed out, the difference in this case is the five Republican Justices support the scam.
“The majority’s view, if taken literally, could radically change prior law, perhaps placing much securities law or consumer protection law at constitutional risk, depending on how broadly its exceptions are interpreted.” -Justice Breyer, dissenting
As Breyer points out, Justice Thomas’s decision in NIFLA v. Becerra directly contradicts Justice O’Connor’s holding in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
Is that case now overruled on the strength of this newfound First Amendment issue?
Is that case now overruled on the strength of this newfound First Amendment issue?
* Technically, it’s O’Connor, Kennedy and Souter’s joint opinion in Casey that he contradicted.
