A Woman's Friend Pregnancy Resource Clinic v. Harris

Ninth Circuit

A Woman's Friend Pregnancy Resource Clinic v. Harris

669 F. App'x 495

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedOctober 14, 2016

Docket15-17517

StatusUnpublished

This text of 669 F. App'x 495 (A Woman's Friend Pregnancy Resource Clinic v. Harris) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

A Woman's Friend Pregnancy Resource Clinic v. Harris, 669 F. App'x 495 (9th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

A Woman’s Friend Pregnancy Resource Clinic, et al. (collectively A Woman’s Friend) appeals from the district court’s denial of their motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent the enforcement of the California Reproductive Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care, and Transparency Act (the FACT Act or the Act). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), and we affirm.

1. The district court properly found that A Woman’s Friend cannot demonstrate a likelihood of success on their First Amendment free speech or free exercise claims. See Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20, 129 S.Ct. 365, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008). With respect to the free speech claim, the Act regulates licensed clinics’ professional speech, and is subject to intermediate scrutiny, which it survives. See Nat’l Inst. of Family & Life Advocates (NIFLA) v. Harris, No. 16-55249, Slip op. at 26-34, 2016 WL 5956734 (9th. Cir. 2016). The Act’s notice that applies to unlicensed clinics survives any level of review. See id. at 34-37. With respect to the free exercise claim, the Act is a neutral law of general applicability, which survives rational basis review. See id. at 37-39.

2. Because we affirm the district court’s finding that A Woman’s Friend cannot demonstrate a likelihood of success on their First Amendment claims, thus failing to meet the first, most important Winter factor, see Garcia v. Google, Inc., 786 F.3d 733, 740 (9th Cir. 2015) (en banc), we need not parse their showing under the remaining Winter factors. 1

AFFIRMED.

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

1

. We also conclude that A Woman’s Friend have not raised "serious questions’’ going to the merits of their claims; thus, the alternate test set forth in Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1134-35 (9th Cir. 2011), does not apply. The district court's conclusion that there were serious questions going to the merits was harmless error because the district court appropriately denied the motion for a preliminary injunction.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM *

A Woman’s Friend Pregnancy Resource Clinic, et al. (collectively A Woman’s Friend) appeals from the district court’s denial of their motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent the enforcement of the California Reproductive Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care, and Transparency Act (the FACT Act or the Act). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), and we affirm.

1. The district court properly found that A Woman’s Friend cannot demonstrate a likelihood of success on their First Amendment free speech or free exercise claims. See Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20, 129 S.Ct. 365, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008). With respect to the free speech claim, the Act regulates licensed clinics’ professional speech, and is subject to intermediate scrutiny, which it survives. See Nat’l Inst. of Family & Life Advocates (NIFLA) v. Harris, No. 16-55249, Slip op. at 26-34, 2016 WL 5956734 (9th. Cir. 2016). The Act’s notice that applies to unlicensed clinics survives any level of review. See id. at 34-37. With respect to the free exercise claim, the Act is a neutral law of general applicability, which survives rational basis review. See id. at 37-39.

2. Because we affirm the district court’s finding that A Woman’s Friend cannot demonstrate a likelihood of success on their First Amendment claims, thus failing to meet the first, most important Winter factor, see Garcia v. Google, Inc., 786 F.3d 733, 740 (9th Cir. 2015) (en banc), we need not parse their showing under the remaining Winter factors. 1

AFFIRMED.

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

1

. We also conclude that A Woman’s Friend have not raised "serious questions’’ going to the merits of their claims; thus, the alternate test set forth in Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1134-35 (9th Cir. 2011), does not apply. The district court's conclusion that there were serious questions going to the merits was harmless error because the district court appropriately denied the motion for a preliminary injunction.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

669 F. App'x 495, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/a-womans-friend-pregnancy-resource-clinic-v-harris-ca9-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack