Filed Date: Aug. 7, 2024
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
In a case that raises significant First and Fourteenth Amendment concerns, citing violations of free speech and due process protections under the U.S. Constitution and brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, two anti-abortion pregnancy help organizations are challenging the New York Attorney General's enforcement of consumer protection statutes, arguing it unlawfully suppresses their speech.
Two anti-abortion pregnancy help organizations sued the New York Attorney General for allegedly chilling their free speech.
On August 7, 2024, Summit Life Outreach Center Inc. and The Evergreen Association Inc., No. 1:24-cv-00514 (W.D.N.Y. 2024), two nonprofit pregnancy resource centers, filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York against New York Attorney General Letitia James. The plaintiffs alleged that James violated their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights by targeting their speech about Abortion Pill Reversal (APR) through threats of legal action and enforcement of consumer protection statutes. The complaint contended that these actions chilled their ability to communicate about APR, forcing them to self-censor. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, claiming that James’ enforcement of New York’s commercial fraud statutes against pregnancy help organizations constituted unlawful viewpoint discrimination and suppression of protected speech. They also alleged that the statutes in question were unconstitutionally vague, leading to arbitrary enforcement, and that James’ actions targeted religiously motivated speech, infringing on their free exercise rights.
Shortly after filing, the case was consolidated with another similar lawsuit under the docket number 1:24-cv-00514. The consolidation combined legal arguments and streamlined the litigation process, bringing all related claims before a single judge for coordinated proceedings.
On September 24, 2024, the court issued an order staying the case. The stay was granted to allow time for a related legal challenge concerning the enforcement of New York’s consumer protection statutes against pregnancy resource centers to be resolved. Specifically, Free Speech for Life v. James (Docket No. 1:23-cv-00321) currently under appellate review is addressing whether such enforcement constitutes unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination under the First Amendment. The court determined that the appellate ruling in that case could establish critical legal precedent affecting the claims in this lawsuit, particularly regarding the extent to which the state can regulate speech about Abortion Pill Reversal without violating constitutional protections. The order emphasized judicial efficiency and the avoidance of inconsistent rulings, noting that proceeding without clarity from the other pending matter could lead to unnecessary litigation and duplicative efforts. Until the stay is lifted, no further legal actions will take place in the case. As of February 2025, this case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Karma Karira (2/3/2025)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69026410/parties/summit-life-outreach-center-inc-v-james/
Baptist, Erik C. (New York)
Breen, Peter C. (New York)
Dalton, Jonathan Caleb (New York)
Ferrara, Christopher A. (New York)
Kitchen, Denis A. (New York)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69026410/summit-life-outreach-center-inc-v-james/
Last updated Aug. 11, 2025, 2:26 a.m.
State / Territory: New York
Case Type(s):
Healthcare Access and Reproductive Issues
Key Dates
Filing Date: Aug. 7, 2024
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Summit Life Outreach Center Inc. and The Evergreen Association Inc. Expectant Mother Care, both non-profit pregnancy help organizations.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Non-profit religious organization
Attorney Organizations:
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
State of New York (New York, New York), State
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Constitutional Clause(s):
Due Process: Substantive Due Process
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Issues
Discrimination Basis:
Affected Religion(s):
Reproductive rights: