Detroit Abortion Clinic Buffer Zone Ordinance Challenged

Suit was filed last week in a Michigan federal district court challenging a Detroit ordinance that bans picketing within 15-feet of abortion clinics and bans sidewalk counselors from approaching closer than 8 feet from persons entering clinics. The complaint (full text) in Sidewalk Advocates for Life v. City of Detroit, (ED MI, filed 3/18/2026) alleges in part:

The Ordinance, which is enforceable through criminal penalties, violates the Free Speech, Free Exercise, and Freedom of Assembly Clauses of the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as well as the Michigan Constitution....

... The legislative record contains no evidence that the City attempted to address its asserted interests through less restrictive means before enacting the Ordinance. The City did not pursue targeted injunctions against specific individuals. It did not increase enforcement of existing harassment, assault, obstruction, or trespass statutes. It did not seek dispersal orders. It moved directly to a blanket ordinance outlawing an entire category of expressive activity on public sidewalks....

...The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment ... prohibits the government from imposing substantial burdens on the exercise of sincerely held religious beliefs unless the burden is imposed by a neutral law of general applicability....

The Ordinance is not generally applicable because § 31-14 4(b)(2) exempts “[a]uthorized security, personnel, employees, or agents” of healthcare facilities who are “engaged in assisting patients and other persons to enter or exit” the facility. This exemption permits clinic employees and escorts to engage in the precise conduct the Ordinance forbids for everyone else: standing within 15 feet of the entrance, approaching patients, speaking to them, and walking alongside them within the buffer zone. Under the framework of Tandon v. Newsom ... and Fulton v. City of Philadelphia ... whenever the government treats comparable secular activity more favorably than religious exercise, the law is not generally applicable and strict scrutiny applies automatically. One exemption suffices to create constitutional infirmity.

Thomas More Society issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

HHS Launches Investigations of 13 States for Violating Conscience Rights

Yesterday, the Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights, announced that it has launched investigations of 13 states for potential violations of the Weldon Amendment's protection of conscience rights. According to the Release, these states may be relying on a now-rescinded interpretation that allowed states to require health plan sponsors and employers to provide abortion coverage because they do not meet the definition of “health care entity” under the Weldon Amendment. According to the Release:

The Weldon Amendment ... protects Americans’ conscience rights by prohibiting federal, state, or local government discrimination against health care entities that choose not to pay for, or provide coverage of, abortion. OCR ... earlier this year ... repudiated a 2021 case-specific letter that excluded employers and plan sponsors from the scope of health care entities that the Weldon Amendment protects.  OCR informed states ... that they should no longer rely on the now-repudiated legal position.

“OCR launches these investigations to address certain states’ alleged disregard of, or confusion about, compliance with the Weldon Amendment,” said Paula M. Stannard, Director of the HHS Office for Civil Rights. “Under the Weldon Amendment, health care entities, such as health insurance issuers and health plans, are protected from state discrimination for not paying for, or providing coverage of, abortion contrary to conscience. Period.”

Wyoming Governor Signs Heartbeat Abortion Law While Expressing Concern Over Its Constitutionality

On March 9, Wyoming Governor Mark Gordon signed Enrolled Act No. 29 / House Bill 126, the Human Heartbeat Act (full text), into law (press release). The law prohibits an abortion when there is a detectable fetal heartbeat. The only exception is a "medical emergency", defined as a need to terminate a pregnancy to avert the mother's death or where there is serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function. 

The law then sets out an alternative less-restrictive set of provisions which will take effect only if fetal heartbeat ban is found to be unconstitutional. These are the provisions that were in effect before the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs. These provisions ban abortions after viability, except when necessary to preserve the woman from an imminent peril that substantially endangers her life or health. These alternate provisions also require that in most cases an abortion patient be given an opportunity to view an active ultrasound. The alternative provisions also set out lengthy procedures where a minor is seeking an abortion.

Governor Gordon's Signing Letter (full text) questions the constitutionality of the new law. It says in part:

Despite the upright, moral intentions of HEA 29, I believe this act very likely puts us back in the all too familiar and unfortunate territory of pro-life litigation....

The central obstacle remains the Wyoming Supreme Court's interpretation of Article 1, Section 38 of the Wyoming Constitution in State v. Johnson...

In the Johnson case, the Wyoming Supreme Court by a vote of 4-1 held that Wyoming's nearly total abortion ban and its medication abortion ban violate Art. I, §38, of the Wyoming Constitution which provides that every competent adult has the right to make his or her health care decision, subject to reasonable and necessary restrictions imposed by the legislature. (See prior posting).

The Governor's signing letter also said that he would have preferred if the law had contained exceptions for rape and incest.

WyoFile reports on these developments.

Indiana Trial Court Permanently Enjoins Enforcement of Abortion Ban Against Women with Conflicting Religious Beliefs

In Anonymous Plaintiff 1 v. Individual Members of the Medical Licensing Board of Indiana, (Super. Ct., March 5, 2026), an Indiana state trial court, invoking Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act, issued a permanent injunction barring enforcement of Indiana's abortion ban against individuals whose religious exercise would be substantially burdened by the ban. A state appellate court had already decided that plaintiffs were entitled to a preliminary injunction. (See prior posting.) In granting the permanent injunction, the trial court said in part:

The Abortion Law would allow a plaintiff to seek an abortion if her pregnancy were the result of rape, but not if it were mandated by her religious beliefs. The State has not justified this differential treatment by establishing that its interest in the same prenatal life changes based upon the reason for terminating a pregnancy. The fact that the Abortion Law expressly allows for abortion in other circumstances, in at least one circumstance at any gestational age, demonstrates the lack of a compelling interest in “protecting life” under all circumstances and from fertilization. Id.

Moreover, “the [Indiana] General Assembly has declined to explicitly define human beings to include zygotes, embryos, or all fetuses.” Id. (code citations omitted). The Abortion Law specifically exempts from its coverage in vitro fertilization procedures—a process that results in post-fertilization embryos, even though “there is the potential for life that might be destroyed in the process of this procedure.” ... “That broad exemption suggests any compelling interest by the State is absent at fertilization.” Id.

The State has not satisfied its burden under RFRA to demonstrate a compelling governmental interest in enforcing the Abortion Law against sincere religious practice, either in general or as to the plaintiffs.

... The State may prefer the statute’s existing “secular” exceptions to religious ones, but it cannot escape the fact that the law is underinclusive.... Given that the statute is underinclusive, the State bears the burden of “adequately explain[ing] its differential treatment.” Id. It has not.

The court would suggest that the State has already found ways to accommodate competing interests by putting parameters on the exceptions. There is no reason that the same accommodations could not be made with the conflict with RFRA. An outright ban is simply not the least-restrictive mean.

ReligiousLiberty.tv comments on the decision.

UPDATE: Indiana Capital Chronicle reports that the Attorney General has appealed the ruling.

State's Criticism of Pregnancy Resource Centers Did Not Violate Clinics' Free Speech or Free Exercise

 In A Woman's Concern, Inc. v. Healey, (D MA, Feb. 17, 2026), a Massachusetts federal district court rejected claims by a religiously affiliated pregnancy resource center ("Your Options Medical Centers" (YOM)) that the state Department of Public Health violated plaintiff's free speech, free exercise and equal protection rights when it disseminated information critical of pregnancy resource centers. In its 59-page opinion, court said in part:

The amended complaint fails primarily because it does not plausibly suggest that Defendants have targeted YOM for actual or threatened enforcement action, let alone to stifle its protected speech or viewpoint.  First, YOM has not plausibly alleged any unconstitutional regulatory action.  YOM takes issue with a guidance letter sent by DPH to every licensed physician, physician assistant, nurse, pharmacist, pharmacy, hospital, and clinic in Massachusetts reminding them to abide by various healthcare regulations.  This guidance highlighted several medical standards and requirements, some of which apply to YOM and some that do not.  No reasonable person reading the guidance would have believed it selectively targets YOM or other PRCs for their views.  The guidance aimed at enforcing numerous, neutral state laws, none of which YOM challenges.  Similarly, broad, public-facing campaign statements criticizing the practices of PRCs generally as “dangerous” “public health threats” constitute permissible government expression, not unconstitutional threats of enforcement against YOM.... The amended complaint also alleges no facts to suggest that state officials wielded threats of enforcement action as a mechanism to suppress YOM’s speech, rather than to crack down on violations of state law. 

Second, Defendants focused the campaign not on the pro-life, religious views of PRCs, but rather on the quality of their medical services and advertising practices.  None of Defendants’ statements suggest any hostility to religion.  No allegations plausibly show that Defendants targeted their enforcement decisions based on the views or religion of YOM specifically or PRCs generally.  Thus, the amended complaint fails, including YOM’s request for “[a] permanent injunction ordering Defendants . . . [to] ceas[e] any advertising activity or campaign that falsely accuses YOM of misconduct or of being a threat to public health.”... 

Universal Hub reports on the decision. 

Suit Challenges Michigan Ban on Discrimination Because of Pregnancy Termination

Last week, two pro-life organizations filed suit in federal district court against Michigan officials challenging on 1st and 14th Amendment grounds 2023 amendments to state anti-discrimination laws that prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of termination of pregnancy. The law already included a ban on discrimination on the basis of pregnancy or childbirth. The 82-page complaint (full text) in Right to Life of Michigan v. Nessel, (WD MI, filed 2/6/2026) alleges in part:

Recent changes to Michigan’s employment law force religious and pro-life groups to employ and associate with persons who do not share or live by—and may even oppose—the organizations’ beliefs on human life. This violates the First Amendment. Plaintiffs Right to Life of Michigan (Right to Life) and Pregnancy Resource Center (PRC) recruit, hire, and retain only employees who adhere to, agree to abide by, and can effectively communicate their pro-life views. This employment policy puts them at odds with Michigan’s new law. Right to Life and PRC bring this suit to ensure they can continue to serve Michiganders without diluting their pro-life views through the lukewarm or hostile hires Michigan’s law demands....

The complaint alleges seven causes of action ranging from infringing free speech and free exercise rights to infringing the right to refrain from taking human life. Zeale reports on the lawsuit.

Arizona Trial Court Strikes Down 3 Laws Restricting Abortions

In Isaacson v. State of Arizona, (AZ Super. Ct., Feb. 2, 2026), an Arizona trial court struck down three Arizona statutes that restrict a woman's ability to obtain an abortion.  A 2024 Amendment to Arizona's state constitution prohibits the state from restricting pre-viability abortions unless the law is for the limited purpose of maintaining the health of the person seeking an abortion and does not infringe on that person's autonomous decision making. The court held that this provision invalidates (1) Arizona's ban on seeking an abortion because of a fetal abnormality; (2) Arizona's requirement a physician perform an ultrasound and deliver state-mandated information to a person seeking an abortion 24 hours before carrying out the procedure; and (3) Arizona's ban on use of telemedicine to provide abortion inducing drugs.

Arizona's Attorney General in a press release said in part:

Today's ruling is a major victory for Arizona women, families, and their doctors. The court has affirmed what we've known all along: the abortion restrictions challenged in this case are unconstitutional.

According to AP, Republican legislative leaders had intervened in the case to defend the restrictions. Senate President Warren Petersen's office said the decision will be appealed.

ACLU issued a press release announcing the decision. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Supreme Court Review Sought by High School Pro-Life Group Over Free Speech Rights

 A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed yesterday with the U.S. Supreme Court in E.D. v. Noblesville School District, (Sup. Ct., cert. filed 1/28/2026). At issue in the case is a high school's refusal to permit a student pro-life group to post flyers in the school because of the political content of the flyers. The dispute eventually led to the suspension of the pro-life group for several months. The 7th Circuit upheld the school's action. The petition for review filed with the Supreme Court sets out the Question Presented in part as follows:

The Seventh Circuit upheld the school’s censorship under Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, ... on the theory that a “reasonable observer could easily conclude that the flyers reflected the school’s endorsement.”... In so doing, it exacerbated a deep, longstanding circuit split over when Hazelwood’s reduced speech protection applies. 

The question presented is: 

Whether Hazelwood applies (1) whenever student speech might be erroneously attributed to the school, as the Fifth, Seventh, and Tenth Circuits have held; (2) when student speech occurs in the context of an “organized and structured educational activity,” as the Third Circuit has held; or (3) only when student speech is part of the “curriculum,” as the Sixth and Eleventh Circuits have held.

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the cert. petition.

Texas AG Sues Out-of-State Mail Order Provider of Abortion Drugs

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton yesterday filed a civil lawsuit against a Delaware-based nurse practitioner whose telehealth service called "Her Safe Harbor" ships abortion inducing medication to women nation-wide. The complaint (full text) in State of Texas v. Lynch, (TX Dist. Ct., filed 1/27/2026), alleges that defendant is violating the Texas Human Life Protection Act which prohibits most abortions. It also contends that defendant is practicing medicine in Texas without a license. The lawsuit seeks an injunction barring defendant from violating Texas law.

In a press release announcing the lawsuit, Paxton said in part:

This lawsuit follows two tragic cases in Texas in which radical abortion activists and organizations facilitated men illegally purchasing abortion-inducing drugs. According to one lawsuit, a man used the drugs to secretly poison his girlfriend, causing the death of their unborn child, and sending the mother to the hospital....

 “No one, regardless of where they live, will be freely allowed to aid in the murder of unborn children in Texas.” 

[Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

NIH Ends Funding of Research Using Human Fetal Tissue from Elective Abortions

On Thursday, the National Institute of Health announced (press release) that it will no longer fund research involving human fetal tissue from elective abortions, saying in part:

“This decision is about advancing science by investing in breakthrough technologies more capable of modeling human health and disease. Under President Trump’s leadership, taxpayer-funded research must reflect the best science of today and the values of the American people.”

NIH-supported research using human fetal tissue has declined steadily since 2019, with only 77 projects funded in Fiscal Year 2024. At the same time, advances in organoids, tissue chips, computational biology, and other cutting-edge platforms have created robust alternatives that can drive discovery while reducing ethical concerns. The updated policy ensures that limited public resources are directed toward research approaches that offer the greatest potential to improve health outcomes for all Americans.

Catholic Vote reports on the NIH announcement.

HHS Says Illinois Right to Conscience Act Violates Federal Law

On January 21, the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Civil Rights sent a Notice of Violation (full text) to the state of Illinois. The Notice informs the state that HHS has found that the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act violates federal bans on discrimination against pro-life health care entities that do not refer patients elsewhere for abortions. The Illinois law generally provides a shield from liability to health care personnel that refuse on conscience grounds to perform abortions, but only if the objecting provider either refers or transfers the patient elsewhere or at least furnishes the patient written information about other health care providers who likely offer abortion services. In its Notice of Violation, HHS takes the position that discriminating against entities that do not "refer" out for abortions includes denying legal defenses to entities that do not either transfer patients to another provider or give patents written information about alternative providers. ADF issued a press release discussing HHS's action.

Anti-Abortion Sidewalk Counselor Loses Challenge to City's Sign Ordinance

In Hamann v. City of Carbondale, Illinois, (SD IL, Jan. 21, 2026), an Illinois federal district court refused to preliminarily enjoin the city of Carbondale's sign ordinance. The Ordinance prohibits plaintiff, a Christian minister, from temporarily placing his anti-abortion signs in the ground on public property near an abortion clinic while he is attempting to persuade women not to have an abortion. Under the Ordinance, he can carry or wear the signs but cannot place them into the ground. The court rejected plaintiff's claims that the Ordinance is unconstitutionally vague and violates his free speech rights. It concluded that the Ordinance is a permissible time, place and manner regulation of speech in a public forum. The court went on in part:

Hamman’s final argument advances a theory of viewpoint discrimination based on the City’s “policy of inaction” towards signs that share messages other than his.... He submitted photos of three temporary signs he found throughout Carbondale which, he believes, were placed in the public right of way and not removed the way his were. From there, he contends that the City engaged in a “targeted campaign of enforcement” against his signs based on their anti-abortion messages....

Hamman acknowledges that he does not know how long these signs had been in the public right of way when he photographed them. This, then, leaves open the possibility that the City had not had time to remove them—something that, Lenzini explained, can happen from time to time. Surely, if these signs had been placed in the public right of way with the City’s permission, or been left there after the City became aware of them, such evidence would support Hamman’s claim of selective enforcement. But the record reveals no such evidence....

7th Circuit: Satanic Temple Lacks Standing to Challenge Indiana's Ban on Telehealth Abortion [CORRECTED]

 In Satanic Temple, Inc. v. Rokita, (7th Cir., Jan. 6, 2026), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals held that The Satanic Temple lacks standing to bring suit claiming that Indiana's ban on telehealth prescribing of abortion medications violates Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The Satanic Temple's beliefs are described by the court:

Members of the Satanic Temple adhere to Seven Tenets.... Tenet III establishes the belief that one’s body is inviolable and subject to one’s own will alone.  Another, Tenet V, establishes that individual beliefs should conform to an individual’s “best scientific understanding of the world” and that each person “should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit one’s own belief.” The Satanic Temple says these Tenets support what it calls the “Satanic Abortion Ritual,” a meditative ritual intended to “cast off notions of guilt, shame, and mental discomfort that a patient may be experiencing due to choosing to have a medically safe and legal abortion.”...

The court concluded that The Satanic Temple had not show any injury in fact to it or any of its members, saying in part: 

Instead of identifying an individual member who has suffered an injury, the Satanic Temple relies on statistical probability to show it has some unnamed members who might be injured....

... [W]e are left with a simple estimate of women who may be involuntarily pregnant, and there is no evidence that any one of them would want to obtain an abortion. Simply put, missing here is evidence that any member of the Satanic Temple has “personally … suffered some actual or threatened injury.”...

As a backstop argument, the Satanic Temple claims “Indiana[’s] Abortion Ban” has caused all of its members to “suffer the stigma of being evil people because they do not believe a human being comes into existence at conception nor do they believe abortion is homicide.” ...  But, other than merely saying so, the Satanic Temple provides no evidence that its members have actually suffered stigmatic injury. ...

The Satanic Temple argues the threat of prosecution ... “if” it prescribes abortifacients via telehealth appointments in Indiana is enough to show an injury to support its pre-enforcement challenge. There is no evidence, however, that the Satanic Temple will knowingly or intentionally prescribe abortifacients in violation of § 16-34-2-1 to face the prospect of prosecution. Indeed, it has not provided affidavits, declarations, or other evidence describing any specific, concrete plans of doing so.

Catholic Vote reports on the decision.

[Post was corrected to indicate that the decision was from the 7th Circuit, not the 6th Circuit.]

9th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments on Church's Standing to Challenge Health Insurance Mandate

Yesterday, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in Cedar Park Assembly of God of Kirkland v. Kuderer (video of full oral arguments). In March 2025, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision held that the Assembly of God Church which opposes abortion and some forms of contraception lacked standing to challenge Washington's Reproductive Parity Act which requires health insurance carriers to provide coverage for contraceptives and abortions. A second state statute allows insurance companies to offer employee plans that accommodate a church's religious objections, so long as employees can separately access coverage for such services from the insurer. However, plaintiff church had been unable to find a plan that accommodates its objections. (See prior posting.) Plaintiff filed a petition for an en banc rehearing by the 9th Circuit (full text). In July 2025, the 9th Circuit withdrew its earlier opinion and ordered the new oral argument which took place yesterday. ADF issued a press release containing further background on the case and links to some of the pleadings in the case.

Wyoming Supreme Court Strikes Down State's Abortion Bans

In State of Wyoming v. Johnson, (WY Sup. Ct., Jan 6, 2026), the Wyoming Supreme Court by a vote of 4-1 held that Wyoming's nearly total abortion ban and its medication abortion ban violate Art. I, §38, of the Wyoming Constitution which provides that every competent adult has the right to make his or her health care decision, subject to reasonable and necessary restrictions imposed by the legislature. The majority opinion for 3 justices held that the decision whether to terminate or continue a pregnancy is a woman's own health care decision, and the right to make health care decisions protected by Art. I, §38 is a fundamental right. The majority rejected the state's argument that abortion is not health care and is not the woman's own health care decision since a fetus is involved.

The majority went on to hold that restricting a fundamental right is subject to strict scrutiny and the state had not shown that the state's abortion laws are narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest. The majority rejected the state's argument that the statutory exceptions to the abortion ban make the law narrowly tailored to protect unborn life without unduly infringing on a woman’s fundamental right to make the health care decision to have an abortion.

Justice Fenn filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

I agree with the majority the decision to terminate or continue a pregnancy is a woman’s own health care decision....  However, I cannot agree with the majority’s conclusion that strict scrutiny applies to the right recognized in Article 1, § 38 of the Wyoming Constitution.  I would find Article 1, § 38 allows the legislature to enact reasonable and necessary restrictions that do not unduly infringe on the right to make one’s own health care decisions.  Because the State failed to meet its burden of proving the Abortion Statutes meet this standard, I would find the statutes are unconstitutional and affirm the district court’s decision.

Justice Gray filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

I ... do not dispute that article 1, section 38 creates a fundamental right to make one’s own health care decisions.  I disagree, however, that strict scrutiny applies.  Under the plain terms of article 1, section 38(c), a restriction on a competent adult’s right to make his or her own health care decisions will pass constitutional muster if the legislature could “determine” such restriction was “reasonable and necessary . . . to protect the health and general welfare of the people or to accomplish the other purposes set forth in the Wyoming Constitution.”  When properly construed, the abortion statutes constitute a “reasonable and necessary” restriction by the legislature on the right of a pregnant woman to make her own health care decisions for the purpose of preserving prenatal life at all stages of development.  The abortion statutes do not violate article 1, section 38. 

Wyoming Public Media reports on the decision.

Puerto Rico Recognizes Fetal Personhood

 As reported by the San Juan Daily Star, on Dec. 21 Puerto Rico's Governor Jenniffer González Colón signed into law Senate Bill 504 (full text in Spanish) (full text unofficial English translation) declaring fetal personhood.  The law provides in part:

 ... Every human being is a natural person, including the one conceived at any stage of gestation within the mother's womb."...

Every human being has personality and legal capacity from the moment of conception and is a subject of law for all purposes that are favorable to him. The hereditary rights that the law recognizes in favor of the unborn are subordinate to the event of birth....

The rights recognized to the unborn child do not impair the power of the pregnant woman to make decisions about her pregnancy in accordance with the law....

A National Right to Life press release applauding the Governor's action said in part:

... This historic legal recognition marks one of the strongest pro‑life affirmations within U.S. jurisdictions. By explicitly acknowledging the inherent dignity and personhood of the preborn, Puerto Rico has taken a principled and scientifically grounded step to align its civil law with the biological reality that human life begins at fertilization. 

SB 504 amends the Civil Code to recognize the preborn child as a natural person from the moment of conception. While the law does not alter Puerto Rico’s current abortion statutes, it establishes an important legal and moral precedent by embedding recognition of the unborn child within the territory’s legal framework....

11th Circuit: Pedestrian Buffer Zone at Abortion Clinic's Parking Lot Entrance Violates Leafleters Free Speech Rights

In Florida Preborn Rescue, Inc. v. City of Clearwater, Florida, (11th Cir., Dec. 4. 2025), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, held that a preliminary injunction should issue barring enforcement of a ban on pedestrians in the sidewalk crossing the 28 foot wide entrance to a local abortion clinic's parking lot, and for 5 feet of sidewalk on either side of the driveway. The majority said in part:

Florida Preborn has provided “uncontradicted testimony” that the buffer zone has effectively stifled sidewalk counselors’ ability to distribute literature to patients entering and exiting the clinic.  ...

Separately, it remains the case that, by its terms, the Ordinance forbids a clinic patient who has parked her car to approach sidewalk counselors to receive a leaflet....

We think it clear that the Ordinance burdens substantially more speech—namely, the sidewalk counselors’ leafletting activities—than is necessary to achieve the government’s asserted interest in promoting vehicular safety....  

Dispositively here, the city failed to adequately consider alternative measures....

Judge Abudu dissented, saying in part:

The record shows that counselors wait in brightly colored vests at the edge of the driveway, offering materials to patients driving into the clinic.  If the patients desire, they can stop, roll down their window, and engage with the leafleteers.  However, many choose not to do so. Thus, when balancing FPR’s right to communicate its message against the rights of patients and others not to engage, it is clear that there is no substantial burden on FPR’s ability to leaflet.    

Moreover, the fact that FPR has alternative channels of communication available further demonstrates why the Ordinance is constitutional.  As the district court found, the remaining portions of the driveway and adjacent sidewalk area are still available....

Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the decision. 

Supreme Court Hears Arguments Today in Appeal from Faith-Based Pregnancy Center Over Subpoena for Identity of Donors

The Supreme Court today hears oral arguments in First Choice Women's Resource Centers v. Platkin. At issue in the case is an investigatory subpoena issued by the New Jersey Attorney General seeking the names of donors to First Choice, a faith-based pregnancy center. First Choice contends that the subpoena violates its First Amendment rights and the associational rights of its donors who are concerned about disclosure of their identities. The issue before the Supreme Court is one of whether the First Amendment question should be initially fought out in state or federal court. First Choice challenged the subpoena in federal district court. The Attorney General then filed a subsequent suit to enforce the subpoena in state court. The district court held that First Choice’s constitutional claims are not ripe in federal court because they can be litigated in the subsequently filed state court action. That holding was affirmed by the Third Circuit and is now before the Supreme Court.

Oral arguments, beginning at 10:00 Am, can be heard live at this link. Later today, a transcript and a recording of the oral arguments will be available from the Supreme Court's website here. The SCOTUSblog case page has links to all the filings in the case as well as to commentary.

UPDATE: Here are links to the transcript and audio of the full oral arguments. SCOTUSblog reports on the oral arguments.

2nd Circuit: Information About Abortion Pill Reversal Is Protected Speech

In National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. James, (2d Cir., Dec. 1, 2025), the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a district court's preliminary injunction barring New York's attorney general from taking enforcement action to prevent the plaintiff religious organizations from disseminating information regarding abortion pill reversal. Finding, on the record before it, that plaintiffs' speech is fully protected by the 1st Amendment, the court said in part:

... [W]e conclude that the speech at issue is noncommercial based on the uncontroverted evidence in the current record demonstrating that the speech is religiously and morally motivated, the NIFLA plaintiffs receive no remuneration or financial benefit for engaging in it, and the NIFLA plaintiffs do not provide APR themselves, but rather provide the public with information about APR and access to third-party providers who can offer APR.  Put simply, in this context, these combined elements of the speech at issue here do not transform it into commercial speech for First Amendment purposes. 

To hold otherwise could potentially subject a sweeping range of non-profits to regulation of their speech for providing the public with information and resources concerning critical services.  This could include, depending, of course, on the particular facts and context of each situation, a reproductive rights group in a state with abortion restrictions that provides information about out-of-state organizations that will help women obtain the procedure for free; an LGBT rights group in a state with gender-affirming care restrictions that provides free information about out-of-state organizations that will help individuals seeking hormone therapy to obtain it; or a group that matches immigrants with organizations providing access to employment, English language classes, or immigration legal services.

Reuters reports on the decision.

State Department Human Rights Reports Will Have Changed Focus

Yesterday the State Department announced a change in focus for future Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. The Daily Signal and the Washington Post report on new instructions and guidelines provided to U.S. embassies and consulates as they begin to prepare reports for their nations. As reported by The Daily Signal, the following will now be treated as human rights violations by foreign countries:

Sex-change procedures for minors, such as hormone replacement regimens or irreversible transgender surgeries.

Government funded abortions or abortifacient drugs, as well as the total estimated number of annual abortions.

Arrests, administrative penalties, and “official investigations or warnings” for speech or “hate speech.”

The enforcement of policies like affirmative action or diversity, equity, and inclusion that “provide preferential treatment” to workers on the basis of race, sex, or caste.

The facilitation of mass or illegal migration across a country’s territory into other countries.

Attempts to coerce individuals into engaging in euthanasia.

Violations of religious freedom, including antisemitic violence and harassment.

Medical abuses, including forced testing, forced organ harvesting, and eugenic gene-editing practices on human embryos.

According to the Washington Post:

In unveiling the dramatic shift, Trump administration officials offered an unapologetically U.S.-centric and religiously tinged view of human rights. “The United States remains committed to the Declaration of Independence’s recognition that all men are endowed by the Creator with certain unalienable rights,” said a senior State Department official also involved with briefing the news media. The aim is to focus on rights “given to us by God, our creator, not by governments.”