Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) has filed a lawsuit challenging a new Delaware law that requires pregnancy centers to display specific disclaimers about their services. The legal action comes as part of the organization’s ongoing work defending the First Amendment rights of pro-life organizations across the country.
Delaware’s SB 300 Faces Constitutional Questions
The law in question, Delaware’s Senate Bill 300, mandates that pregnancy centers without certain types of medical providers on staff must post conspicuous disclaimers stating they are not medically licensed facilities. These disclaimers must appear at facility entrances and in all advertising materials, including digital platforms.
According to court documents, the law specifically targets what it terms “crisis pregnancy centers” while exempting abortion providers from similar requirements. The distinction has raised significant constitutional concerns about viewpoint discrimination.
One of the bill’s co-sponsors reportedly stated that the legislation was necessary because pregnancy centers discourage women from seeking abortions, suggesting potential viewpoint-based motivations behind the regulatory requirements.
SB 300 contains specific definitions of which medical professionals “count” for compliance purposes. Notably, the law excludes registered nurses from its definition of licensed medical providers, while including ultrasound technicians who are not required to be licensed by the state.
A Door of Hope Ministry Challenges Advertising Restrictions
A Door of Hope, a Christian ministry serving pregnant women in Delaware, is among the plaintiffs represented by Alliance Defending Freedom in the lawsuit. The organization provides both medical and non-medical services to women facing unplanned pregnancies, including resources for new parents.
The complaint notes that A Door of Hope employs registered nurses who provide and oversee medical services, yet under SB 300’s definitions, the center would still be required to post disclaimers stating it has no licensed medical providers on staff.
Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys argue this requirement effectively forces some pregnancy centers to make false statements, creating a substantial burden on their free speech as well as religious exercise.
The practical implementation of the law also presents significant challenges. For example, the mandatory disclaimer contains 175 characters, while Google advertisements are limited to 120 characters, potentially making such advertising platforms completely unavailable to pregnancy centers under the new regulations.
Supreme Court Precedent Central to Legal Challenge
Alliance Defending Freedom’s legal strategy draws heavily on established Supreme Court precedent, particularly the 2018 decision in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, a case in which ADF attorneys successfully challenged similar disclaimer requirements in California.
In that ruling, the Supreme Court overturned California’s law requiring pregnancy centers to advertise abortion services, with the majority opinion noting that “the people lose when the government is deciding which ideas should prevail.”
The current lawsuit, National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Jennings, was filed in February 2025 by Alliance Defending Freedom in partnership with attorneys from Simms Showers.
The legal action challenges the constitutionality of SB 300 on multiple grounds, including violations of free speech protections and religious liberty concerns.
Alliance Defending Freedom continues to advocate for the position that government regulations targeting specific viewpoints—particularly those of pro-life organizations—raise serious constitutional issues under First Amendment jurisprudence.
As this case moves through the courts, it may further clarify the boundaries of permissible government regulation of speech in the context of pregnancy resource centers and faith-based organizations providing alternatives to abortion services.
