The Supreme Court Rules on Trump Travel Ban and Free Speech

In two 5-4 decisions, the Supreme Court has upheld the Trump Travel Ban and sided with pro-life pregnancy centers.

Trump, President of the United States, et al. v. Hawaii et al.

President Trump signed his first travel ban just one week after taking office in 2017 and it was immediately challenged in the courts. A new version was issued months later and was blocked as well. In September, President Trump wrote a presidential proclamation which restricted entry to the United States by emigrants from Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Chad, Venezuela, and North Korea. After this latest ban was challenged, the Supreme Court decided to take the case and heard arguments in January 2018.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. wrote that there was ample authority to make national security judgments which led to restricted travel from the eight nations and forbid nationals from working, studying, or vacationing in the United States. To read the opinion, visit https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/17-965_h315.pdf
 

National Institute of Family and life Advocates, dba NIFLA, et al. v. Becerra, Attorney General of California, et al.

In 2015, California passed the FACT Act (Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care, and Transparency Act), an act that requires clinics that primarily assist pregnant women to provide notices of free or low cost state issued services, and also provide patients with a phone number to call. The state-sponsored services being advertised can range from prenatal care, family planning services, and abortion. According to the FACT Act, these unlicensed clinics, or pregnancy centers, must also provide written notice that they are not a licensed medical facility through the state of California. The Act's stated purpose is to "ensure that pregnant women know when they are receiving health care from licensed professionals."

Oral arguments were held in March 2018 and, in a 5-4 decision, the court sided with the pregnancy centers who argued that the FACT Act violated their right to free speech; Justice Thomas writing, "the dangers associated with content-based regulations of speech are also present in the context of professional speech" and that "if California's goal is to educate low-income women about the services it provides, then the licensed notice is 'wildly underinclusive'." To read the whole opinion, visit https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-1140_5368.pdf


Popular posts from this blog

Ashley Leaves Chastek Library for Firm Life

Law reVIEW: Erin Brockovich