The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected a bid by anti-abortion activists to narrow a Planned Parenthood lawsuit accusing them of illegally recording video of abortion providers to try to falsely show the illicit sale of aborted fetal tissue for profit.
The justices declined to hear an appeal by the activists of a lower court’s refusal to toss out fraud, invasion of privacy and other claims under California law made in the civil lawsuit by Planned Parenthood, a women’s healthcare and abortion provider.
Activist David Daleiden and his group, the Center for Medical Progress, had argued they were exercising their right to free speech under the U.S. Constitution in surreptitiously making the recordings.
Advertisement - story continues below
Using footage recorded at conferences and other places, the Center for Medical Progress released videos in 2015 purporting to expose Planned Parenthood officials trafficking in aborted fetal parts, sparking controversy, congressional inquiries and investigations in various states.
Planned Parenthood has said the tapes were heavily edited to leave the false impression of wrongdoing.
Stop the censors, sign up to get today's top stories delivered right to your inbox
The federal judge overseeing the case blocked the release of videos in a related matter, concluding there was no evidence of criminal wrongdoing captured in the videos. The Supreme Court left that ruling in place last year.
Daleiden and another activist also face criminal charges in California in connection with the videos.
Advertisement - story continues below
Planned Parenthood sued Daleiden, the California-based Center for Medical Progress and others in 2016, accusing them of conspiracy and wiretapping violations under federal law, as well as claims under California law for fraudulently gaining access to the conferences.
The anti-abortion activists said they were performing investigative journalism and said Planned Parenthood was trying to “silence and punish” them.
The activists claimed they were shielded from the state law claims under another California law requiring dismissal of lawsuits that try to stifle free speech on a public issue, which is a guaranteed right under the state and U.S. constitutions. Laws meant to protect against nuisance suits that stifle free speech, known as known as an “anti-SLAPP” laws, are common in most states.
The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last year rejected their arguments, prompting Daleiden’s appeal to the Supreme Court.
More Supreme Court News
Advertisement - story continues below
Good morning from the Supreme Court, which celebrates April Fools’ Day (and Justice Alito’s birthday) with orders at 9:30 and opinions at 10. LGBT and abortion cases could be on the orders list. pic.twitter.com/RoGfJfqC4T
— Greg Stohr (@GregStohr) April 1, 2019
Supreme Court at 9:30 could announce action on whether to hear cases on:
-Employment protections for LGBT people
-Indiana abortion law
-*new* case on baker refusing to make wedding cake for lesbian couple— Lawrence Hurley (@lawrencehurley) April 1, 2019
Advertisement - story continues below
Is #President #Trump ‘saving’ Amy Coney Barrett for Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Supreme Court seat #Rbg ? https://t.co/HSOj9Wvpy5 pic.twitter.com/ctsH3ZaxDq
— Scotus (@Scotus) April 1, 2019
Is #President #Trump ‘saving’ Amy Coney Barrett for Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Supreme Court seat #Rbg ? https://t.co/HSOj9Wvpy5 pic.twitter.com/ctsH3ZaxDq
— Scotus (@Scotus) April 1, 2019
Advertisement - story continues below
Did anti-gay bias play a role in a jury’s choice of a death sentence over life without parole? “If he’s gay, we’d be sending him where he wants to go,” one juror said of life in prison, where the defendant would be surrounded by men.https://t.co/Fx1f5NrNns
— Adam Liptak (@adamliptak) April 1, 2019
SCOOP: As he was deliberating last year over replacing Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, President Trump told confidants he had big plans for Judge Amy Coney Barrett.
“I’m saving her for Ginsburg,” Trump said. https://t.co/G8q745GHBv
— Axios (@axios) March 31, 2019
Advertisement - story continues below
And finally some very good news!
Remember how Mitch McConnell denied Obama a Supreme Court seat and blocked lots of his other judicial nominees?
He’s about to change Senate rules, again, to make it easier to confirm Trump’s nominees. https://t.co/dKrsRIym7Y
— Jennifer Bendery (@jbendery) March 31, 2019
Reuters contributed to this report.