901 F.3d 1166
9th Cir.2018Background
- Plaintiffs: National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) and two pregnancy centers challenged California’s Reproductive Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care, and Transparency Act (the Act) as violating the First Amendment.
- The dispute concerned compelled speech requirements in notices that applied to both licensed and unlicensed pregnancy centers.
- Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction in district court; the district court denied the injunction, concluding plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on the merits.
- The Supreme Court decided NIFLA v. Becerra, holding that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their First Amendment claim challenging the Act’s notice requirements.
- On remand to the Ninth Circuit, the panel reversed the district court’s conclusion on likelihood of success, vacated the district court’s rulings on the remaining Winter factors, and remanded for reconsideration in light of NIFLA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their First Amendment challenge to the Act’s notice requirements | The notices compel speech in violation of the First Amendment and therefore are unconstitutional | The Act’s notices are permissible regulations and do not violate free speech | Reversed district court: plaintiffs likely to succeed on the merits (consistent with Supreme Court’s NIFLA decision) |
| Whether plaintiffs demonstrated irreparable harm absent preliminary relief | Plaintiffs argued loss of First Amendment rights constitutes irreparable harm | Defendants argued plaintiffs failed to show irreparable injury | District court’s analysis of irreparable harm vacated and remanded for reconsideration in light of NIFLA |
| Whether the balance of equities favors preliminary relief | Plaintiffs contended equities tip in their favor because of constitutional injury | Defendants argued equities favor enforcement of the Act and public interests | District court’s balancing analysis vacated and remanded for reconsideration in light of NIFLA |
| Whether an injunction would serve the public interest | Plaintiffs argued injunction protects speech and the public interest | Defendants argued the notices serve public health and information interests | District court’s public-interest analysis vacated and remanded for reconsideration in light of NIFLA |
Key Cases Cited
- NIFLA v. Becerra, 138 S. Ct. 2361 (2018) (Supreme Court held plaintiffs were likely to succeed on First Amendment challenge to California’s notice requirements)
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (establishes four-factor test for preliminary injunctions)
- Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2011) (requires plaintiffs to show all four Winter factors for preliminary injunction)
- Garcia v. Google, Inc., 786 F.3d 733 (9th Cir. 2015) (en banc) (reiterates requirement that a plaintiff must show all four preliminary-injunction factors)