This is the Cato Daily Podcast for Tuesday, September 18th, 2018.

I'm Caleb Brown.

The Nifla case at the Supreme Court this term was supposed to be about state regulation of so-called

crisis pregnancy centers. Robert McNamara of the Institute for Justice discussed the case in the

latest edition of the Cato Institute's Supreme Court review, he says it will ultimately be remembered

for eliminating once and for all the dubious First Amendment loophole known as Professional Speech.

We spoke during yesterday's Constitution Day festivities.

You cast the Nifla case, and I'll ask you to describe what that case was all about, as sort of

a sleeper blockbuster of this Supreme Court term.

What was the case about and why do you think it will have such a big impact?

So Nifla v. Becerra is a case about disclosure requirements California was imposing on what are called crisis pregnancy centers, which are these places that provide certain services to pregnant women that are operated by pro-life

organizations explicitly to steer women away from abortions and they don't

provide abortions they don't provide referrals to abortions and they're controversial

because people who are opposed to them say that they are frequently deceiving women.

They're tricking them into thinking their full service medical clinics and tricking them out of actually seeking abortion services they would otherwise seek.

And so states like California have imposed certain requirements on them about disclosures they have to make to the public.

And here, California said that centers that were licensed by the state

had to have large signs informing all of their customers

of how they could go about getting a state subsidized abortion, which the

center is objected to on First Amendment grounds as compelled speech. But all of

that is, I think, beside the point of why I think this is a hugely important case just as a matter of First Amendment law

because Nifla v Vissera in deciding the case had to deal with what's called the professional

...