A federal judge called a recent Illinois law “stupid” that targets maternal health care centers and sidewalk counselors for expressing their pro-life message after he blocked enforcement of the statute.
The lawsuit, filed on July 27, is National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NILFA) v. Raoul. Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul, a Democrat who is being sued in his official capacity, is the defendant in the legal proceeding. The lawsuit is still pending in the courts.
Judge Johnston was appointed in September 2020 by President Donald Trump.
The injunction has halted enforcement of SB1909, the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Businesses Practices Act, at least for the time being.
The law, which Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker, also a Democrat, signed on July 27, hours before the lawsuit was initiated, “bars so-called ‘crisis pregnancy centers’ from using misinformation, deceptive practices, or misrepresentation in order to interfere with access to abortion services or emergency contraception,” his office said in a statement.
Mr. Raoul said at the time that he “witnessed deceptive crisis pregnancy center tactics firsthand on a visit to tour a Planned Parenthood health center in Illinois.”
There were “people who appeared as though they might work there ... outside attempting to divert patients away from the health center,” he said.
“Patients report going to crisis pregnancy centers — sometimes even receiving exams and ultrasounds — thinking they were visiting a clinic that offers the full range of reproductive care.
“As a result, patients may disclose personal medical information, unaware the center may not keep that information private and confidential,” he said. By signing the law, the governor “is helping to protect patients who seek care in Illinois from these extreme violations of trust and privacy.”
Mr. Pritzker appeared on CNN on Aug. 4 to defend the law after Judge Johnston blocked it. The statute is constitutional, the governor argued.
“Well, it’s just like the case against President Trump,” he said.
“You have a right to free speech, but you don’t have a right to lie. You don’t have a right to use those lies to push people into situations in which they, frankly, are breaking the law, or where they are unaware of what their full rights are. So, you know, we need to make sure that people know [what] their rights are.”
Plaintiffs who sued to stop the law objected to it because it declared that the pro-life speech engaged in by pregnancy help ministries is a “deceptive business practice.” They litigated to protect the right of pro-life pregnancy help centers and sidewalk counselors across the state to continue their work reaching out to women across Illinois facing unplanned pregnancies.
In the new court order, Judge Johnston ridiculed the state law.
The late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia “once said that he wished all federal judges were given a stamp that read ‘stupid but constitutional,’” he wrote.
“SB 1909 is both stupid and very likely unconstitutional,” the judge said.
“It is stupid because its own supporter admitted it was unneeded and was unsupported by evidence when challenged.
“It is likely unconstitutional because it is a blatant example of government taking the side of whose speech is sanctionable and whose speech is immunized ... SB 1909 is likely classic content and viewpoint discrimination prohibited by the First Amendment.”
The kind of speech regulated by the law “is extremely controversial,” and the law itself “is not a constitutional regulation of professional speech.”
Judge’s Assessment Welcomed
Peter Breen, executive vice president and head of litigation at the Thomas More Society, a Chicago-based national public interest law firm that is representing NILFA, welcomed the judge’s blunt assessment of the law.“We were grateful for the court to get cutting through the rhetoric and for getting right to the heart of what this law was doing to small pro-life pregnancy health ministries,” he told The Epoch Times in an interview.
“The judge clearly understood the harm that Illinois Senate Bill 1909 was doing to pregnancy health ministries, whether pregnancy centers or sidewalk counselors, and acted swiftly to ensure that our clients are protected, at least through the pendency of the case.”
Mr. Breen said he hoped Judge Johnston’s treatment of SB 1909 would deter legislatures in other states from passing similar laws.
“There are other states that are looking at or are enacting similar laws, and we’re very hopeful that this ruling will really be looked at, especially by blue state legislatures, as a warning that if they do try to restrict pro-life speech like Illinois has done, they’re going to get a hostile reception in federal district court.
“Whether it’s in the abortion space or otherwise, the government should not be telling people what is true and false when it comes to substantial issues of public dispute like this one.”
Mr. Breen also shared thoughts on legal strategy.
“One of the reasons, especially in a First Amendment case, you want to go for a preliminary injunction early, is to get a sense of the court’s legal assessment of a new law.”
“And this decision was such a strong condemnation of the law as unconstitutional that the state may feel it has to appeal this ruling because those findings of law, the conclusions of law, will likely not change between the preliminary phase and the final judgment at the end of the case,” the attorney said.
“If those stand, you’re going to lose the case anyway. So that may be another factor that would go into the attorney general’s calculus in deciding whether or not to appeal.”
Mr. Raoul has 30 days from the date of the decision, Aug. 3, to file an appeal of the injunction with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit.
Mr. Raoul’s office didn’t respond by press time to a request by The Epoch Times for comment.
