compelled speech

At the end of 2011, 34 million people were living with HIV, according to the World Health Organization, and AIDS took the lives of 1.7 million people that same year. In 2003, Congress took action to prevent the spread of infectious diseases worldwide by passing the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003 (Leadership Act or Act). The Act designates federal funds to non-governmental organizations that fight against the spread of HIV/AIDS so long as the organization also opposes prostitution and sex trafficking. Petitioner United States Agency for International Development (USAID) argues that this policy requirement targets prostitution and sex trafficking as significant contributors to the spread of HIV/AIDS while minimally impacting, if at all, the speech of a federally funded organization. In contrast, respondent Alliance for Open Society International (AOSI) argues that the policy requirement violates the protections of the First Amendment by forcing a federally funded organization to adopt a viewpoint that may not only be insensitive to localized concerns regarding the trust of victims but also may distort public debate by inhibiting field research.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Issues

This case will determine how much a state can force a medical provider to say when that speech is antithetical to the provider’s religious beliefs. California’s Reproductive FACT Act (“the Act”) requires licensed pregnancy-service facilities to disseminate a notice stating that: “California has public programs that provide immediate free or low-cost access to comprehensive family planning services (including all FDA-approved methods of contraception), prenatal care, and abortion for eligible women” and providing a phone number that patients can call to seek more information. The Act also requires unlicensed clinics to distribute a notice disclosing that they are not licensed by the state. The National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (“NIFLA”) argues that the Act unconstitutionally compels speech and should be subjected to strict scrutiny, which it cannot survive. NIFLA further contends that the Act discriminates impermissibly against pro-life clinics based on their viewpoint. California responds that the Act is a permissible exercise of the government’s authority to regulate speech between professionals and their clients, which survives any level of scrutiny. California also claims that the Act addresses fraudulent practices affecting women’s understanding of their reproductive healthcare choices and does not suppress pro-life viewpoints. Will free speech prevail over regulation of doctors and will the result benefit pregnant women?

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources