About: National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra

Facets (new session)
Description
Metadata
Settings
- Rule:
- Inverse Functional Properties:
- "Same As":

About: National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra Goto Sponge NotDistinct Permalink

An Entity of Type : dbo:SupremeCourtOfTheUnitedStatesCase, within Data Space : dbpedia.demo.openlinksw.com associated with source document(s)
QRcode icon

http://dbpedia.demo.openlinksw.com/describe/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdbpedia.org%2Fresource%2FNational_Institute_of_Family_and_Life_Advocates_v._Becerra&invfp=IFP_OFF&sas=SAME_AS_OFF

National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), was a case before the Supreme Court of the United States addressing the constitutionality of California's FACT Act, which mandated that crisis pregnancy centers provide certain disclosures about state services. The law required that licensed centers post visible notices that other options for pregnancy, including abortion, are available from state-sponsored clinics. It also mandated that unlicensed centers post notice of their unlicensed status. The centers, typically run by Christian non-profit groups, challenged the act on the basis that it violated their free speech. After prior reviews in lower courts, the case was brought to the Supreme Court, asking "Whether the disclosures required by the California Rep

Attributes	Values
rdf:type	Thing case Legal Case unit of work Legal case Supreme Court of the United States case
rdfs:label	National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra (en)
rdfs:comment	National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), was a case before the Supreme Court of the United States addressing the constitutionality of California's FACT Act, which mandated that crisis pregnancy centers provide certain disclosures about state services. The law required that licensed centers post visible notices that other options for pregnancy, including abortion, are available from state-sponsored clinics. It also mandated that unlicensed centers post notice of their unlicensed status. The centers, typically run by Christian non-profit groups, challenged the act on the basis that it violated their free speech. After prior reviews in lower courts, the case was brought to the Supreme Court, asking "Whether the disclosures required by the California Rep (en)
foaf:name	National Institute of Family and Life Advocates, dba NIFLA, et al., Petitioners v. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General of California, et al. (en)
dcterms:subject	United States Supreme Court cases United States Supreme Court cases of the Roberts Court Alliance Defending Freedom litigation United States reproductive rights case law United States Free Speech Clause case law 2018 in United States case law
Wikipage page ID	56374565 (xsd:integer)
Wikipage revision ID	1114154731 (xsd:integer)
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage	California State Legislature En banc Anti-abortion movements List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 585 United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit United States District Court for the Southern District of California Intermediate scrutiny Pregnancy test United States Supreme Court cases United States Supreme Court cases of the Roberts Court Coming into force SCOTUSblog Strict scrutiny Clarence Thomas Clinic Elena Kagan Employment Division v. Smith NARAL Pro-Choice America Crisis pregnancy center Anti-abortion Alliance Defending Freedom litigation Los Angeles County Compelled speech Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of Supreme Court of Ohio United States reproductive rights case law U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 9th Cir. A. Wallace Tashima Abortion Alliance Defending Freedom United States Free Speech Clause case law First Amendment to the United States Constitution Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution Nonprofit organization Pacific Justice Institute Gerrymandering Dorothy W. Nelson Judicial panel 2018 in United States case law Abortion-rights movements John B. Owens L. Ed. 2d Supreme Court of the United States Planned Parenthood v. Casey Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc. Circuit split Free Exercise Clause Free Speech Clause Certiorari Ultrasound Preliminary injunction National Institute of Family and Life Advocates S.D. Cal. F.3d U.S. Dist. LEXIS dbr:Wikt:aff'd
Link from a Wikipage to an external page	https://www.oyez.org/cases/2017/16-1140 https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-1140_5368.pdf https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/585/16-1140/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/585/16-1140/%23tab-opinion-3920349 https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20161014098 https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/national-institute-family-life-advocates-v-becerra/
sameAs	National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate	dbt:Caselaw_source dbt:Infobox_SCOTUS_case dbt:Original_research_inline dbt:Reflist dbt:Snd dbt:Use_mdy_dates dbt:Ussc dbt:US1stAmendment
Dissent	Breyer (en)
docket	16 (xsd:integer)
JoinDissent	Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan (en)
JoinMajority	Roberts, Kennedy, Alito, Gorsuch (en)
LawsApplied	First Amendment to the United States Constitution
OralArgument	https://www.oyez.org/cases/2017/16-1140
oyez	https://www.oyez.org/cases/2017/16-1140
ParallelCitations	172800.0 (second)
Prior	25920.0 (second)
USPage	___ (en)
USVol	585 (xsd:integer)

Faceted Search & Find service v1.17_git139 as of Feb 29 2024

Alternative Linked Data Documents: ODE Content Formats:

RDF

ODATA

Microdata

About

OpenLink Virtuoso version 08.03.3330 as of Mar 19 2024, on Linux (x86_64-generic-linux-glibc212), Single-Server Edition (378 GB total memory, 60 GB memory in use)
Data on this page belongs to its respective rights holders.
Virtuoso Faceted Browser Copyright © 2009-2024 OpenLink Software