CTIA Asks 9th Circuit to Toss Berkeley RF Law, After Supreme Court NIFLA Ruling
The Supreme Court’s recent decision rejecting a California disclosure law in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra is a “ringing endorsement” of CTIA's view that the First Amendment “protects the rights of commercial speakers to speak and…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
to remain silent,” the association said Thursday in a brief (in Pacer) at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. CTIA is challenging an RF disclosure ordinance in Berkeley; the 9th Circuit earlier disagreed with CTIA, but the Supreme Court directed the appeals court to take another look, given NIFLA (see 1807110023). The Supreme Court “held that the State’s asserted goal of enabling pregnant women to make more informed choices about health care services could not justify forcing these facilities to speak when they would prefer to remain silent on those issues,” CTIA said. “NIFLA thus confirms that commercial speech -- including both the right to speak and the right to refrain from speaking -- is entitled to First Amendment protection in its own right and not, as the City contends, based solely on its value to listeners.” Whereas California tried to require crisis pregnancy centers to make “entirely accurate” statements, Berkeley wants carriers to “disseminate a government-drafted, misleading, inflammatory, and controversial opinion about cell phone safety and radiation while evading any serious constitutional scrutiny,” CTIA said. Berkeley’s response is due Aug.16.