Centro Tepeyac v. Montgomery County
Description: A Montgomery County, Md. law forced “limited-service pregnancy centers” and individuals who have a “primary purpose” of offering information about pregnancy to post signage noting that a medical professional is not on staff and that the county health department advises them to speak with a licensed medical professional. The county intentionally crafted the law so that it doesn’t apply to pro-abortion centers, such as Planned Parenthood, even if counseling is offered there by non-medical persons.
Md. county pays $375,000 for anti-pregnancy care law
Attorney sound bite: Matt Bowman
The ruling and settlement are positive signs in the nationwide battle against such ordinances. Other lawsuits are pending in Baltimore, New York City, San Francisco, and Austin, Texas.
“Pro-life pregnancy centers, which offer real help and hope to women, shouldn’t be punished by political allies of the abortion industry,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Matt Bowman, co-counsel in the case. “No government, in a quest to achieve a political goal, should ever resort to coercing or shutting down someone else’s speech in violation of the First Amendment. We hope that this settlement will cause other governments to reconsider any efforts to enforce similar laws.”
“The government cannot stifle pro-life centers just because abortionists fear their hopeful message,” said lead counsel Mark Rienzi, one of more than 2,400 ADF-allied attorneys and a law professor at Catholic University of America’s Columbus School of Law. “Four years of litigation made it clear that the government had no basis for interfering with Centro Tepeyac’s loving efforts to help women.”
The Montgomery County law forced “limited-service pregnancy centers” and individuals who have a “primary purpose” of offering information about pregnancy to post signage noting that a medical professional is not on staff and that the county health department advises them to speak with a licensed medical professional. The county intentionally crafted the law so that it doesn’t apply to abortion centers, such as Planned Parenthood, even if counseling is offered there by non-medical persons.
The opinion of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland issued in Centro Tepeyac v. Montgomery County explained that “the critical flaw for the County is the lack of any evidence that the practices of [the pregnancy care centers] are causing pregnant women to be misinformed which is negatively affecting their health,” adding that “when core First Amendment interests are implicated, mere intuition [of a problem] is not sufficient. Yet that is all the County has brought forth: intuition and suppositions.”
ADF-allied attorneys Bob Michael, Bob Destro, and John Garza also served as co-counsel in the suit.
- Pronunciation guide: Bowman (BOH’-min), Rienzi (Ree-EN’-zee)
Additional resources: Centro Tepeyac v. Montgomery County
Scroll down to view additional resources pertaining to this case and its surrounding issue
Previous News Releases
Matt Bowman serves as senior counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom, where he focuses on the impact of administrative law on religious freedom, the sanctity of life, and family. He most recently joined ADF in December 2020. From 2017 to 2020, Bowman was a senior executive service appointee in the Trump administration, serving the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services as Deputy General Counsel, and then in the Office for Civil Rights. Prior to joining HHS, Bowman was an accomplished litigator at ADF for over ten years. Before joining ADF in 2006, Bowman served as a law clerk for Judges Samuel A. Alito, Jr., and Michael A. Chagares, at the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and for Judge John M. Roll at the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. Bowman earned his J.D. summa cum laude and was first in his class at Ave Maria School of Law in 2003. He is a member of the bar of the District of Columbia and Michigan and is admitted to practice at the U.S. Supreme Court and multiple federal appellate and district courts.