Sports Apparel Company Challenges Colorado's Public Accommodation Law Protection of Transgender Athletes

Suit was filed this week in a Colorado federal district court by an online athletic apparel company, "XX-YY Athletics," that promotes banning of transgender women from women's sports through logos on its apparel and through advertisements.  The company claims that Colorado's Anti-Discrimination Act violates the 1st and 14th Amendments when its public accommodation provisions declare that Coloradans have a right to access advertising that is free from discrimination on the basis of gender expression and chosen name. The complaint (full text) in Committee of Five, Inc. v. Sullivan, (D CO, filed 5/27/2025), alleges in part:

191. The most common way that XX-XY Athletics demonstrates why male competition in women’s sports is unfair or unsafe is by reference to specific transgender-identifying male athletes....

206. Although CADA prohibits XX-XY Athletics from speaking consistently with its view that sex is immutable, the law allows other businesses that also qualify as public accommodations to speak according to their view that sex can be changed.  

207. This distinction in treatment is based on a particular view that the business holds about human sexuality and gender identity....

222. The First Amendment’s Free Speech, Press, and Assembly Clauses protect XX-XY Athletics’ ability to speak, create, publish, sell, and distribute speech; to associate with others and with their messages for expressive purposes; to adopt and act on certain speech-related policies; to decline to associate with others and their message for expressive purposes; to decline to create, publish, sell, and distribute speech; to be free from content-based and viewpoint-based discrimination; and to be free from overbroad and vague restrictions on speech that give enforcement officials unbridled discretion....

225. As applied to XX-XY Athletics, CADA impermissibly discriminates against the company’s speech based on content and viewpoint by prohibiting it from referring to individuals by their given name and with pronouns and terminology consistent with their biological sex.  

226.  As applied to XX-XY Athletics, CADA impermissibly inhibits the company’s ability to form expressive associations it desires to form and to avoid expressive associations it desires to avoid by requiring the company to refer to individuals by their preferred name, pronouns, and other terminology and prohibiting the company from referring to individuals by their given name and with pronouns and terminology consistent with their biological sex....

The complaint also alleges that the Colorado law is void for vagueness and violates the Equal Protection clause. ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Colorado Law Banning Deadnaming and Misgendering Challenged as Free Speech Violation

Suit was filed this week in a Colorado federal district court challenging on free speech and vagueness grounds provisions in recently enacted Colorado HB25-1312. The lawsuit focuses on provisions that define deadnaming and misgendering as discriminatory acts under Colorado's Anti-Discrimination Act. The complaint (full text) in Defending Education v. Sulivan, (D CO, filed 5/19/2025), alleges in part:

5. ... H.B. 25-1312 amends the definition of “gender expression,” a protected category under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, to include the use of a “chosen name” and other words by which an individual “chooses to be addressed.”...

30. Under H.B. 25-1312, then, someone who operates in a public accommodation commits a discriminatory act when they refer to a transgender-identifying individual using the individual’s birth name or biological pronouns instead of their chosen name or preferred pronouns ... because that speech supposedly denies the transgender individual the “full and equal enjoyment” of the place of public accommodation based on their “gender expression.” ...

86. ... Colorado’s public accommodation laws as amended by H.B. 25-1312 make it impossible for [plaintiffs} ... to effectively exercise their constitutionally protected right to speak in a manner that reflects their sincere belief that sex is immutable and fixed at birth....

122. That H.B. 25-1312 does not literally require Coloradans to speak is of no consequence. Even if Plaintiffs and their members could avoid the law’s penalties by holding their tongues, compelled silence is compelled speech..... In any event, using pronouns and names is a “‘virtual necessity’” for engaging in any conversation....

136. The Unwelcome Provision clearly prohibits speech based on content and viewpoint. It prohibits all speech that makes someone feel “unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable, or undesirable.” But “[g]iving offense is a viewpoint.”... It also compels speech by, for example, requiring published speech to be “[w]elcom[ing]” and “[un]objectionable.” Even assuming this provision only regulated speech based on content, Defendants have no compelling interest for prohibiting this type of speech....

The Lion reports on the lawsuit.

South Carolina Abortion Law Does Not Violate Free Exercise Rights

In Bingham v. Wilson, (D SC, May 7, 2025), a South Carolina federal district court refused to dismiss claims by five physicians that the health and fetal anomaly exceptions to South Carolina's abortion ban are unconstitutionally vague.  The court however dismissed plaintiffs' free exercise challenge. The court said in part:

Plaintiffs’ theory is that “South Carolina has made a value judgment that secular (e.g., procreative) motivations for ending a potential life are important enough to overcome its asserted general interest in preserving it, but that religious motivations are not.”... Accepting Plaintiffs’ argument would require this Court to accept that the performance of abortions is a religious practice protected by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment....

... Plaintiffs’ argument hinges on a finding that the Abortion Ban favors “secular conduct” over “religious conduct” by permitting limited exceptions (with the effect of undermining the State’s interest in preserving life), but prohibiting such exceptions in unenumerated circumstances where the Abortion Ban infringes upon their free religious exercise.  The Court finds this argument unpersuasive.  The State has a legitimate interest in both fetal and maternal health and exercised its plenary authority in enacting legislation that considers these interests....

Most Challenges to Law Protecting Access to Abortion Clinics Are Rejected; One Section Violates 1st and 14th Amendments

In Hulinsky v. County of Westchester, (SD NY, March 14,2025), two women who have engaged in sidewalk counseling at abortion clinics challenged a Westchester County, New York, law that was designed to assure safe access to reproductive health care facilities. The court described the challenged legislation:

Sections 425.31(a) prohibits forms of “physically obstructing or blocking” that amount to interfering with and/or intimidating persons obtaining access at a reproductive health care facility. Sections 425.31(e) and (f) prohibit interfering with and/or intimidating persons obtaining access at a reproductive health care facility “[b]y force or threat of force, or by physically obstructing or blocking[.]” Section 425.31(c) prohibits “knowingly follow[ing] and harass[ing] another person within twenty-five (25) feet of” a “reproductive health care facility.” Section 425.31(h) prohibits “knowingly interfer[ing] with the operation of a reproductive health care facility.”

A New York federal district court found that Sec. 425.31(h) "burden[s] substantially more speech than is necessary to further the government’s legitimate interests." It also concluded that the section "is vague because it fails to provide people of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to understand what conduct is prohibited." However, the court dismissed plaintiffs' free exercise challenge to the section as well as their free speech and free exercise challenges to other parts of the law. 

Missouri and Christian Counselors Sue Localities Over Conversion Therapy Bans

Suit was filed last week in a Missouri federal district court against Kansas City and Jackson County, Missouri by the state of Missouri and Christian licensed counselors challenging ordinances passed by those jurisdictions which broadly ban licensed counselors from engaging in counseling directed at changing a minor's sexual orientation or gender identity. The complaint (full text) in Wyatt Bury, LLC v. City of Kansas City, Missouri, (WD MO, filed 2/7/2025), alleges in part:

Kansas City and Jackson County recently passed ordinances that ban purely consensual conversations—pure speech—about gender identity and sexual orientation. These ordinances not only require counselors to parrot these governments’ preferred views on sexual ethics; they also ban different views. That violates the First Amendment. 

340. The Counseling Ordinances facially and as-applied restrict speech based on content and viewpoint by prohibiting the Counselors and other licensed professionals who are Missouri citizens from proclaiming only certain content and viewpoints; by applying to speech based solely on its content; by authorizing counseling that supports only one viewpoint of gender identity and sexual orientation....  

353. The Public Accommodation Ordinance forces the Counselors to speak messages they object to by requiring them to offer and provide same-sex marital and relationship counseling because the Counselors offer and provide counseling about marriages and relationships between one man and one woman.... and to refer to clients and prospective clients by using those persons’ self-selected pronouns....

376. The City’s Public Accommodation Ordinance substantially burdens the Counselors’ sincerely held religious beliefs by requiring them either to operate their counseling practices in ways that violate their religious beliefs or to close their practices....

Plaintiffs also challenge the ordinances on vagueness grounds. 

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuits.

Michigan's Ban on Conversion Therapy for Minors Is Upheld

In Catholic Charities of Jackson, Lenawee and Hillsdale Counties v. Whitmer, (WD MI, Jan. 28, 2025), a Michigan federal district court refused to issue a preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement against counselors employed by Catholic Charities of Michigan's ban on conversion therapy for minors. The court concluded that plaintiffs were not likely to prove that the ban violates their free speech or free exercise rights, or that is void for vagueness.  The court said in part:

Here, Plaintiffs allege that they believe that “when a client comes to them and seeks to change her gender identity or gender expression to align with her biological sex, or seeks to change her behavior to refrain from acting on same-sex attraction, it is their ethical and religious duty to help that client live the life she desires to live” ...

The law is not subject to any form of heightened scrutiny under the First Amendment because the conduct regulated by the law is not merely “tied to a [medical] procedure,” ..., but consists solely of the administration of the procedure or treatment itself.... 

... In passing the new law, Michigan legislators found that treating children with conversion therapy fell below prevailing standards of care, and Michigan legislators targeted the specific and devastating harms to children that result from conversion therapy, including dramatically increased risks of depression and suicide....

Plaintiffs are not likely to establish the Free Speech violations alleged in Counts I through III....

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that Plaintiffs have plausibly demonstrated that Michigan’s law burdens the free exercise of religion, a law that burdens religious exercise is presumptively unconstitutional unless it is both neutral and generally applicable....

Michigan’s new law readily passes this test of facial neutrality.... There is no reference to religion nor any use of words with religious connotations. Michigan’s law prohibits all conversion therapy on minors, regardless of whether the minor’s (or the minor’s parent’s) motivation for seeking such therapy is religious or secular, or some variation....

Here, Plaintiffs contend that Michigan’s law was enacted with “official expressions of hostility to this well-known religious practice” ....  However, ... the comments Plaintiffs highlight do not necessarily demonstrate hostility to religion, only criticisms of conversion therapy.

News from the States reports on the decision.

South Carolina Doctors Challenge Abortion Ban on Free Exercise Grounds

Suit was filed last week in a South Carolina federal district court by five physicians who contend that South Carolina's abortion ban violates their religious and conscientious beliefs in violation of the First Amendment's free exercise clause. The complaint (full text) in Bingham v. Wilson, (D SC, filed 1/8/2025), alleges in part:

137. Plaintiffs hold sincere religious and conscientious beliefs that they have unwavering duties to respect the dignity of every person, help people in critical need, and place others before themselves. For Plaintiffs, that includes using their medical training to honor a patient’s request to end a pregnancy that threatens to deeply harm her.

The complaint focuses on the narrow exceptions from the abortion ban in South Carolina law for health of the mother, rape or incest, and fatal fetal anomaly and contends:

168. It is neither religiously neutral nor generally applicable for South Carolina to allow abortion under the Abortion Ban’s secular Exceptions while criminalizing abortion when Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs compel it in substantially similar circumstances. 

169. In sum, South Carolina has criminalized religious conduct while allowing secular conduct that undermines its purported state interest in similar ways. In doing so, the State has made a value judgment that secular motivations for abortion care are important enough to overcome this interest, but that religious motivations are not. South Carolina has thus singled out religious conduct for unfavorable treatment.

Plaintiffs also allege that the health and fetal anomaly exceptions in the law are unconstitutionally vague.

Washington Examiner reports on the lawsuit.  [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

Teacher Sues After Being Suspended for Having Books With LGBTQ+ Characters in Her Classroom

 A third-grade teacher in the southern Ohio village of New Richmond filed suit last week in an Ohio federal district court seeking damages for the 3-day suspension imposed on her for having four books in her classroom's book collection that have LGBTQ+ characters in them.  The school claimed that the books violated the District's Policy 2240 on Controversial Issues in the Classroom. The complaint (full text) in Cahall v. New Richmond Exempted Village School District Board of Education, (SD OH, filed 12/2/2024), alleges in part:

12. Plaintiff Karen Cahall maintained these books in her classroom amongst over one hundred other books spanning a wide variety of subject matters in furtherance of her sincerely held moral and religious beliefs that that all children, including children who are LGBTQ+ or the children of parents who are LGBTQ+, deserve to be respected, accepted, and loved for who they are....

50. During the course of her employment with defendant New Richmond, other teachers, staff and administrators have publicly displayed insignias and symbols of their religious beliefs in the presence of students, including but not limited to Christian crosses worn as jewelry, that are more visible to students than the books identified herein, without any consequence....

70. New Richmond Board Policy No. 2240 is unconstitutionally vague ... because it fails to provide fair notice to plaintiff Karen Cahall and other teachers ... of what they can and cannot maintain in their classrooms....

81. By using New Richmond Board Policy No. 2240 to suspend plaintiff Karen Cahall ... based upon a perceived community objection to plaintiff Karen Cahall’s sincerely held moral and religious beliefs, defendant Tracey Miller unlawfully and with discriminatory intent determined that plaintiff Karen Cahall’s religious viewpoints and beliefs were unacceptable, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.....

87. By using New Richmond Board Policy No. 2240 to suspend plaintiff Karen Cahall ..., defendant Tracey Miller unlawfully and with discriminatory intent determined that plaintiff Karen Cahall’s moral and religious viewpoints and beliefs were unacceptable in comparison to the moral and religious viewpoints of others. in violation of the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Cincinatti Enquirer reported on the lawsuit.

Street Preacher Who Refused to Leave Restricted Area Around Kentucky Derby Loses Challenges to His Arrest

In Blankenship v. Louisville-Jefferson County Metro Government, Kentucky, (WD KY, Dec. 6, 2024), a Kentucky federal district court dismissed free speech, free exercise and vagueness challenges to action by local law enforcement against a street preacher, Jacob Blankenship, who refused to leave a restricted area around Churchill Downs on Kentucky Derby Day. The Court said in part:

... [I]f the restriction of Blankenship’s speech was content-neutral, it makes no difference whether Blankenship was arrested in a traditional or limited public forum....

[B]ecause the restrictions of access to the permitted and ticketed areas served purposes unrelated to the content of speech, those restrictions were content-neutral. The purpose of establishing the permitted area—facilitating ingress and egress for Churchill Downs—can be justified without reference to the content of any speech.... Accordingly, Blankenship’s free speech claim calls for intermediate scrutiny....

...Those restrictions survive intermediate scrutiny. The ticketed area was narrowly tailored to serve Metro’s significant interests in traffic control and public safety. It also left open ample alternative channels for Blankenship to share his message with essentially the same audience.....

The purpose of Metro’s permitting scheme is not to infringe upon or restrict religious practices.... The ticketed area restricted Blankenship’s preaching no differently than it restricted non-religious conduct.... 

... Because the ticketed area’s restrictions only incidentally effected Blankenship’s preaching, on his free exercise claim, Metro and Young are entitled to judgment as matter of law....

Because Blankenship has not tethered his due process void-for-vagueness claim to any liberty or property interest, it fails as a matter of law.

9th Circuit Narrows Preliminary Injunction Against Idaho's Abortion Trafficking Law

 In a 2-1 decision in Matsumoto v. Labrador, (9th Cir., Dec. 2, 2024) the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals significantly narrowed an Idaho federal district court's preliminary injunction against enforcement of the state's ban on assisting a minor in various ways to obtain an abortion without her parent's consent. The majority concluded that plaintiffs were likely to succeed only in their challenge to one part of the law.

 Idaho Code §18-623 provides:

An adult who, with the intent to conceal an abortion from the parents or guardian of a pregnant, unemancipated minor, either procures an abortion ... or obtains an abortion-inducing drug for the pregnant minor to use for an abortion by recruiting, harboring, or transporting the pregnant minor within this state commits the crime of abortion trafficking.

The majority held that the statute is not void for vagueness, nor does it burden the right of expressive association. It concluded, however, that the statute's ban on "recruiting" is an unconstitutionally overbroad regulation of protected speech. The court said in part:

 ... “[R]ecruiting” has broad contours that overlap extensively with the First Amendment. It sweeps in a large swath of expressive activities—from encouragement, counseling, and emotional support; to education about available medical services and reproductive health care; to public advocacy promoting abortion care and abortion access. It is not difficult to conclude from these examples that the statute encompasses, and may realistically be applied to, a substantial amount of protected speech....

In our view, the “recruiting” prong of Section 18-623 is neither integral nor indispensable to the operation of the statute as the Idaho legislature intended and therefore may be severed from the rest of the law. Without the “recruiting” prong, the statute criminalizes “harboring or transporting” a minor to “procure an abortion” “with the intent to conceal [the abortion] from the parents or guardian” of the minor— an intelligible crime that reaches the problems the legislature sought to rectify.

Judge Bea dissented in part. He argued that plaintiffs lack standing and therefore the district court should dismiss the suit. Idaho Capital Sun reports on the decision.

Court Enjoins Disciplining of Doctors Performing Certain Abortions in Tennessee

In Blackmon v. State of Tennessee, (TN Chanc. Ct., Oct. 17, 2024), a Tennessee state Chancery Court issued a temporary injunction barring the state from instituting disciplinary proceedings against plaintiff physicians for performing abortions in any of four specified medical situations. The court found that plaintiffs are likely to succeed in their challenges under the right to life, liberty or property and the equal protection clauses of the state constitution and in their vagueness challenge. The court said in part:

The question remains ... whether the Medical Necessity Exception, as currently written, serves a compelling state interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that goal.  Given the range of interpretations proffered through the expert declarations ..., the Court finds that the issue of which conditions, and the timing of when they present and escalate to life-threatening conditions, constitute medical emergencies within the Medical Necessity Exception is demonstrably unclear, notwithstanding the “reasonable medical judgment’ of the physician standard set forth in the Exception.  This lack of clarity is evidenced by the confusion and lack of consensus within the Tennessee medical community on the circumstances requiring necessary health- and life-saving abortion care.  The evidence presented underscores how serious, difficult, and complex these issues are and raises significant questions as to whether the Medical Necessity Exception is sufficiently narrow to serve a compelling state interest....

Plaintiff Patients, as pregnant women, claim they are similarly situated to non-pregnant women who seek and are in need of emergency medical care.  Yet because of the criminal abortion statute, pregnant women are treated differently than non-pregnant women because their access to emergency medical care is restricted....

While the court enjoined disciplinary proceedings, it held that it lacked jurisdiction to enjoin enforcement of the state's criminal abortion statute. The Hill reports on the decision. [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

Pregnancy Centers Sue California AG To Stop Enforcement of Business Fraud Statutes Against Them

Suit was filed last week in a California federal district court by a California anti-abortion pregnancy center and a Christian organization of pregnancy centers challenging the California attorney general's attempts to apply the state Business Fraud statutes to plaintiffs' promotion of abortion pill reversal. The 86-page complaint (full text) in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Bonta, (CD CA, filed 10/2/2024), alleges that the Attorney General's enforcement threats violate plaintiffs' free speech and free exercise rights, saying in part:

12. Plaintiffs here ... wish to truthfully inform the public that it may be possible to counteract the first abortion drug’s lethal effects if women change their minds and seek treatment within the first three days after taking it. 

13. Plaintiffs wish to say the same (and similar) things about APR that the other nonprofits have. But the Attorney General’s actions show that if they do, they may be subject to injunctions, civil penalties of up to $2,500 per “violation,” and potential jail time....

18. The Attorney General says he supports a woman’s right to choose whether to keep her pregnancy, yet he seeks to deprive a woman who changes her mind, or who was coerced or tricked into taking the first abortion drug, of truthful information about a safe and effective way to save her pregnancy. 

19. The Constitution protects Plaintiffs’ right to speak to the public and women about lawful medical treatments provided by licensed medical professionals.  

20. This action seeks to enjoin the Attorney General from targeting, chilling, and punishing Plaintiffs’ speech about APR and a declaration that his actions violate Plaintiffs’ First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to speak freely, to practice their religion, and to due process under the law.

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Pro-Life Pregnancy Centers May Move Ahead with Challenges to Vermont Regulations

 In National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Clark, (D VT, June 14, 2024), a Vermont federal district court allowed three pro-life pregnancy centers to move ahead with free speech challenges to Vermont's regulation of limited-service pregnancy centers. At issue is a prohibition on disseminating misleading information about the services offered by such pregnancy centers as well as a provision making health care professionals at these pregnancy centers responsible for the conduct and speech of non-licensed individuals.  The statute also provides that offering services to reverse a medication abortion constitutes unprofessional conduct by health care workers at the centers. The court rejected the state's claim that the speech being regulated is commercial speech or is regulation of professional conduct that merely incidentally regulates speech. It allowed plaintiffs to move ahead with their claims that the statutes discriminate on the basis of the viewpoint. However, the court dismissed plaintiffs' vagueness claims. ADF issued a press release announcing the decision.

New Hampshire Divisive Concepts Law Is Void For Vagueness

 In Local 8027, AFT-N.H., AFL-CIO v. Edelblut, (D NH, May 28, 2024), a New Hampshire federal district court held that statutes enacted in 2021 that ban the teaching in public schools, or by employers, or in government programs of specified divisive concepts are void for vagueness. The banned concepts found in NH Revised Statutes §193.40 , §354A-31 and §354A-32, are:

(a) That one's age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, marital status, familial status, mental or physical disability, religion or national origin is inherently superior to people of another age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, marital status, familial status, mental or physical disability, religion, or national origin;

(b) That an individual, by virtue of his or her age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, marital status, familial status, mental or physical disability, religion, or national origin, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously;

(c) That an individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of his or her age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, marital status, familial status, mental or physical disability, religion, or national origin; or

(d) That people of one age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, marital status, familial status, mental or physical disability, religion, or national origin cannot and should not attempt to treat others without regard to age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, marital status, familial status, mental or physical disability, religion, or national origin.

The court concluded:

The Amendments are viewpoint-based restrictions on speech that do not provide either fair warning to educators of what they prohibit or sufficient standards for law enforcement to prevent arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. Thus, the Amendments violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Concord Monitor reports on the decision.

Court Enjoins Idaho's Ban on Aiding a Minor in Obtaining an Abortion

In Matsumoto v, Labrador I, (D ID, Nov. 8, 2023), an Idaho federal district court issued a preliminary injunction against enforcing Idaho Code Section 18-623 which provides in part:

An adult who, with the intent to conceal an abortion from the parents or guardian of a pregnant, unemancipated minor, either procures an abortion ... or obtains an abortion-inducing drug for the pregnant minor to use for an abortion by recruiting, harboring, or transporting the pregnant minor within this state commits the crime of abortion trafficking.

The court said in part:

The Court finds Idaho Code Section 18-623 is a content-based regulation of protected speech and expression. The statute plainly regulates expression based on content by restricting adults from engaging in activities that advocate, assist, and communicate information and support to pregnant minors about legal abortion options....

Here, Idaho Code Section 18-623 fails to provide fair notice or ascertainable standard of what is and what is not abortion trafficking. The terms “recruiting, harboring, or transporting” are undefined, overbroad, and vague, making it impossible for a reasonable person to distinguish between permissible and impermissible activities....

In Matsumoto v. Labrador II, (D ID, Nov. 8, 2023), the same court refused to dismiss plaintiffs' First Amendment speech and 14th Amendment vagueness challenges as well as their right to interstate travel claims. However the court did dismiss plaintiffs right to intrastate travel challenge.

Reuters reports on the preliminary injunction.

Free Speech and Free Exercise Challenges to Law Restricting Sidewalk Counselors Moves Ahead

In Pro-Life Action Ministries v. City of Minneapolis, (D MN, Oct. 30,2022), a Minnesota federal district court dismissed void-for-vagueness and an expressive-association challenges to a Minneapolis ordinance that bans physically disrupting access to a reproductive healthcare facility.  The court however refused to dismiss plaintiff's free speech, free exercise of religion and overbreadth claims. It said that it is impossible, without a trial record that explores historical background, legislative history, and contemporaneous statements of decisionmakers to determine whether the law is neutral and generally applicable, or whether, instead, it targets religious conduct. A trial record is also needed to decide whether the law is narrowly tailored. The suit was brought by a Christian nonprofit organization that engages in “sidewalk counseling” outside abortion clinics.

2 North Carolina Abortion Restrictions Enjoined

 In Planned Parenthood South Atlantic v. Stein, (MD NC, Sept. 30, 2023), a North Carolina federal district court issued a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of two provisions of North Carolina's law regulating abortions.  The court said in part:

The plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their vagueness challenge to the requirement that providers determine and document the probably intrauterine location of a pregnancy before administering medication intended to terminate a pregnancy. The Act does not provide a clear standard by which providers can make this determination....

The plaintiffs are also likely to succeed on the merits of their equal protection challenge to the Act's requirement that surgical abortions after 12 weeks of pregnancy must be performed in a hospital.  The plaintiffs have offered uncontradicted evidence that the same medical procedures used for surgical abortions are used for miscarriage management and that the risks of those identical procedures are the same whatever their purpose... The plaintiffs have shown the absence of any rational medical basis for distinguishing between these two classes of patients....

CNN reports on the decision. 

Vermont Pregnancy Counseling Centers Sue Over New Restrictions

Suit was filed yesterday in a Vermont federal district court attacking Vermont's recently-enacted SB 37 which, among other things, imposes new regulation on anti-abortion pregnancy counseling centers. The law prohibits advertising of services that is "untrue or clearly designed to mislead the public about the nature of the services provided." It also provides that licensed health care professionals who provide services at such centers are responsible for ensuring that services, information and counseling at the center complies with these requirements. The complaint (full text) in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Clark, (D VT, filed 7/25/2023) contends that these provisions are unconstitutionally vague and also violate the free speech rights of clinics, alleging in part:

111. The Advertising Prohibition provides no guidance as to how it should be applied to advertisements including medical information on which there is no medical consensus.

112. The Advertising Prohibition is also unclear as to whether it requires a disclosure in all advertisements that the pregnancy center does not provide abortions or "emergency contraception."

113. Requiring such a disclosure would compel the centers' speech.

114. The Advertising Prohibition has chilled Plaintiffs' speech.

115. For example, Aspire's medical director created a video about abortion pill reversal that Aspire would like to post on its website....

168. Because Plaintiffs do not charge for their services, the Provider Restriction, 9 V.S.A. § 2493(b), regulates Plaintiffs' non-commercial speech.

169. The Provider Restriction is a viewpoint- and content-based regulation of pure speech because it directly regulates speech about health-care-related" information" and "counseling" by "limited-services pregnancy centers," even when no medical treatment or procedure is involved. 9 V.S.A. § 2493(b).

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

10th Circuit: Abortion Clinic Sidewalk Demonstrators Lose Challenge to Disturbing-the-Peace Ordinance

In Harmon v. City of Norman, Oklahoma, (10th Cir., March 1, 2023), the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court's dismissal of challenges to the city's disturbing-the-peace ordinance brought by abortion clinic sidewalk demonstrators who preach to clinic visitors in an attempt to persuade them against abortion. The court said in part:

The demonstrators filed a three-count complaint, seeking relief from the City and Officer Jeff Robertson under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaint asserted as-applied and facial challenges to the ordinance under the Free Speech Clause, Free Exercise Clause, and the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and further alleged that Norman failed to train its police officers. The complaint also requested preliminary and permanent injunctions to stop the City from enforcing the ordinance....

We hold that § 15-503(3) is constitutional under the Free Speech Clause as applied to the demonstrators. The demonstrators have not shown that the subsection was content-based, insufficiently tailored, or fatal to their sidewalk ministry....

The district court determined that rational-basis deference applied [to the Free Exercise claim] because the demonstrators presented no evidence that § 15-503(3) was religiously motivated. We agree....

The court went on to conclude that plaintiffs lacked standing to bring facial challenges to several portions of the Ordinance. It also concluded that the Ordinance's ban on "loud or unusual sounds" is not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad.

Catholic Bookstore Sues Challenging Florida City's Public Accommodation Law

Suit was filed yesterday in a Florida federal district court challenging the constitutionality of applying Jacksonville's public accommodation law to Queen of Angels, a Catholic bookstore. The complaint (full text) in The Catholic Store, Inc. v. City of Jacksonville, (MD FL, filed 2/22/2023) alleges Free Speech, Free Exercise and vagueness claims, saying in part:

Following a disturbing nationwide trend, the City has expanded its public-accommodation law to cover gender-identity discrimination and thereby require businesses to address customers using their preferred pronouns and titles regardless of a customer's biological sex. The law even prevents businesses from publishing "any communication" a customer or government official might subjectively interpret as making someone feel "unwelcome, objectionable, or unacceptable," such as statements opposing gender-identity ideology.

All this in turn puts Jacksonville's law on a collision course with the First Amendment and ... "Queen of Angels"...,.The bookstore also publishes a website (with blog) any YouTube channel to promote its Catholic faith and products.

As a Catholic bookstore, Queen of Angels follows Catholic teachings-- including the belief that God created everyone in His image, male or female, worthy of dignity and respect. The store serves and sells everything to everyone regardless of gender identity. The bookstore just cannot speak contrary to its beliefs-- to affirm, for example, the view that sex can be changed. So the store cannot use customers' pronouns or titles contrary to their biological sex. Queen of Angels must instead profess an ideological view it opposes....  In effect, the law requires this Catholic bookstore to stop being fully Catholic....

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.