A federal order this summer permanently bars Delaware officials from enforcing a state law that required some pregnancy help centers to post disclaimers and add specific language to their outreach, attorneys representing the centers said Thursday.
Background of the dispute
The litigation, filed in February 2025, challenged Delaware Senate Bill 300 — enacted by the Legislature in 2024 and signed by Gov. Matt Meyer — which went into effect in 2025. The lawsuit, titled National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Jennings, named Delaware Attorney General Kathy Jennings and was brought on behalf of the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) and A Door of Hope Pregnancy Center.
Attorneys from Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) and its local affiliate, Simms Showers, argued the law impermissibly restricted centers’ ability to communicate with clients and potential clients and compelled them “to speak messages that undermine their mission and mislead the public,” according to an ADF statement.
What the law required
Senate Bill 300 targeted centers that operate without a licensed medical provider. Under the statute, those facilities were required to:
- Post a conspicuous disclaimer stating they do not have a licensed medical provider on staff;
- Include similar disclaimer language in marketing and outreach materials;
- Face enforcement through the state’s consumer protection framework for alleged violations.
ADF attorneys said those requirements echoed provisions struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in NIFLA v. Becerra (2018), which found certain compelled speech provisions unconstitutional.
"We applaud Delaware officials for allowing NIFLA and A Door of Hope to serve women and families free from government punishment,"
The quoted statement was attributed to ADF Senior Counsel in materials released with the filing.
Court resolution and state response
State officials agreed to a court order earlier this summer permanently prohibiting the enforcement of the law, according to the parties. The settlement-like order removes the threat of consumer-protection enforcement tied to the disclaimer and marketing requirements for pregnancy centers without licensed medical staff.
ADF said the outcome is consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court’s control of compelled-speech issues in the 2018 decision. The national NIFLA victory had already provided precedent that the attorneys cited when arguing the Delaware statute violated constitutional protections.
Local implications
The court order affects pregnancy help centers across Delaware that provide counseling, material assistance and referrals, typically without on-site licensed medical providers. For those organizations, the decision removes a legal obligation to affix specific disclaimers and reduces the prospect of state-initiated consumer-protection actions tied to the law.
Supporters of the centers framed the outcome as a defense of free speech rights for nonprofit providers; opponents of the centers’ positions have argued that transparency is important for consumers seeking medical care. The state’s agreement to the order halted further litigation on the specific enforcement mechanism created by the 2024 law.
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Law | Delaware Senate Bill 300 (2024) |
| Effective | 2025 |
| Parties | NIFLA, A Door of Hope Pregnancy Center v. Delaware (AG Kathy Jennings) |
| Result | State officials agreed to permanent prohibition on enforcement |
Legal context
Attorneys cited the Supreme Court’s 2018 decision in NIFLA v. Becerra, which invalidated California’s Reproductive FACT Act for compelling certain clinics to provide government-prescribed notices. That case has served as controlling precedent in later suits over whether government may require specific mandated speech from private, nonmedical organizations involved in reproductive services or counseling.
The Delaware settlement removes the immediate threat of penalties tied to the consumer-protection enforcement path that SB 300 established. ADF called the agreement “a win” for pregnancy help organizations and said it allows centers to continue serving clients without the risk of government punishment tied to speech requirements.
What to watch next
- Whether state lawmakers pursue alternative legislation addressing consumer protections without imposing speech mandates.
- Whether other Delaware organizations challenge the settlement or seek broader relief in related areas.
- How pregnancy help centers adjust public communications in the absence of the law’s requirements.
The federal order resolves this specific enforcement dispute in Delaware, but similar legal questions persist nationwide as states and courts continue to navigate the balance between consumer-protection laws and First Amendment limits on compelled speech.
