O'BRIEN v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 768 F. Supp. 2d 804

CENTER provides pregnancy-related counseling and services at Baltimore locations, including prenatal classes, testing, sonograms, vitamins, and abstinence-based birth-control guidance.
CENTER operates rent-free on facilities owned by Archbishop O'Brien and St. Brigid's, who are landlords but not providers of pregnancy services.
Ordinance 09-252 requires limited-service pregnancy centers to post a conspicuous disclaimer in waiting rooms that they do not provide or refer for abortion or birth-control services, in English and Spanish.
The definition of 'limited-service pregnancy center' in the Ordinance excludes centers that provide abortions or nondirective comprehensive birth-control services, leading to potential enforcement penalties for noncompliance.
Plaintiffs filed suit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, asserting facial invalidity of the Ordinance across four counts, and Defendants moved to dismiss while plaintiffs sought partial summary judgment on Counts I and III.
The court dismissed Archbishop and St. Brigid's for lack of standing, allowed them to participate as amici, and granted partial summary judgment in favor of CENTER on Count I, with other counts dismissed without prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the Ordinance violate the First Amendment Free Speech clause?	Center argues the disclaimer burdens fully protected speech.	Defendants contend it regulates commercial speech and is narrowly tailored.	Yes; it violates the First Amendment.
Is the Ordinance content or viewpoint neutral and subject to strict scrutiny?	Disagreement with Plaintiffs' viewpoint motivates the law.	Law applies to all centers and addresses deceptive advertising, not viewpoint.	Strict scrutiny applies; ordinance fails.
Do Archbishop and St. Brigid's have standing to challenge the Ordinance?	Landlords suffer injury from signs bearing the Center's compliance.	No concrete injury; landlords are not liable for tenants' signage.	Lack of standing; claims dismissed.
Are Counts II–IV moot or should they proceed?	These counts parallel First Amendment and related rights and require decision.	May be moot given ruling on Count I.	Counts II–IV dismissed without prejudice; Count I final.

Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 535 U.S. 564 (2002) (central First Amendment protections for speech)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard for plausibility)
Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703 (2000) (content neutrality and viewpoint considerations)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requirements for plaintiffs)
Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819 (1995) (protection against viewpoint-based discrimination)
Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, P.A. v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 1324 (2010) (commercial speech disclosures and related scrutiny)
Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of Supreme Court of Ohio, 471 U.S. 626 (1985) (disclosures in commercial speech contexts)
Playboy Enters. v. W. Inv. Grp., 529 U.S. 803 (2000) (compelling interest and narrowly tailored standards for speech regulations)
Virginia Vermiculite Ltd. v. W.R. Grace & Co., 156 F.3d 535 (4th Cir. 1998) (discusses commercial vs. non-commercial speech characteristics)