NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 19 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MOUNTAIN RIGHT TO LIFE, INC., DBA No. 16-56130
Pregnancy and Family Resource Center;
BIRTH CHOICE OF THE DESERT; HIS D.C. No.
NESTING PLACE, 5:16-cv-00119-TJH-SP
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
MEMORANDUM*
v.
XAVIER BECERRA, Attorney General of
the State of California, in his official
capacity,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Terry J. Hatter, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 9, 2017**
Pasadena, California
Before: LIPEZ,*** BEA, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable Kermit Victor Lipez, United States Circuit Judge for the
First Circuit, sitting by designation.
California’s Reproductive Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care,
and Transparency Act (“the Act”) requires licensed crisis pregnancy centers to notify
clients that they may be eligible for free or low-cost abortions and unlicensed
facilities to notify clients that they are not state-licensed. In this action, three faith-
based, non-profit crisis pregnancy centers, Mountain Right to Life, Inc. (d/b/a
Pregnancy and Family Resource Center), Birth Choice of the Desert, and His
Nesting Place, argue that the Act violates the First Amendment free speech and free
exercise of religion clauses. The district court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for a
preliminary injunction. We have jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ appeal from the denial
of the injunction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) and affirm, because this case is
controlled by our intervening opinion in National Institute of Family & Life
Advocates v. Harris, 839 F.3d 823 (9th Cir. 2016) (“NIFLA”).
1. The district court properly concluded that Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate a
likelihood of success on the merits of their First Amendment free speech or free
exercise claims. See Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008).
The Act regulates licensed covered facilities’ professional speech, and is therefore
subject to intermediate scrutiny, which it survives. NIFLA, 839 F.3d at 838-42. The
notice requirement for unlicensed covered facilities survives any level of review. Id.
at 843-44. And as to the free exercise claim, the Act is a neutral law of general
applicability that survives rational basis review. Id. at 844-45.
2
2. Because Plaintiffs have not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of
their First Amendment claim, nor have they raised serious questions going to the
merits, we need not consider the remaining Winter factors. Id. at 845 & n.11.
AFFIRMED.
3