A federal judge has blocked a new Illinois law that allows the state to penalize anti-abortion counseling centers if they use deception to interfere with patients seeking the procedure.
A federal judge has blocked a new Illinois law that allows the state to penalize anti-abortion counseling centers if they use deception to interfere with patients seeking the procedure.
Actually, it’s your legal analysis that is wrong. Because your analysis begs the very question that the court is trying to answer: is their speech protected?
The answer is right there in the quote by the Supreme Court. Commercial speech is not protected if it’s misleading. So by definition, a law that bans deceptive speech is constitutional.
In the case of these plaintiffs, maybe their speech is misleading and maybe it isn’t. That’s up to a jury to determine. If it’s misleading, then they are breaking the law. If not, then they are not breaking the law.
But either way, the law stands. When you find someone not guilty of a crime, that doesn’t mean you throw out the law that made something a crime.
You’re assuming facts that have yet to be adjudicated.
If the relevant facts are yet to be adjudicated, then there was no basis for an injunction against this law.
Unless, of course, it were preliminary.
A preliminary injunction must be based on the strong likelihood that the plaintiffs will prevail.
If there are not any relevant facts yet, then there is likewise no basis even for a preliminary injunction.
Who said the facts don’t exist?