To settle a lawsuit brought by a pro-life pregnancy center and a nonprofit network of affiliated centers, Delaware officials have agreed to a court order permanently prohibiting them from enforcing an unconstitutional law against the pregnancy centers.
Attorneys with Simms Showers and Alliance Defending Freedom filed a federal lawsuit in February 2025 challenging the Delaware law that unconstitutionally restricts the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates’ and A Door of Hope’s ability to communicate freely and also forces them to speak messages that undermine their mission and mislead the public. One month later, state officials agreed to a court order that temporarily halted enforcement of the law. Now, they have agreed to do so permanently, bringing the lawsuit to a favorable close for the pregnancy centers.
“Clearly, state officials shouldn’t enforce unconstitutional laws, and that’s no less true in this case,” said Simms Showers Partner William R. Thetford, lead counsel for the pregnancy centers. “Pregnancy centers are a force for good in Wilmington and the surrounding community, offering families true, life-affirming care and resources during unplanned or unsupported pregnancies, and now they can pursue that worthy mission unshackled by an inappropriate application of the law.”
“We applaud Delaware officials for allowing NIFLA and A Door of Hope to serve women and families free from government punishment,” said ADF Senior Counsel Kevin Theriot. “We’ve seen too many state attorneys general ramp up their efforts to silence, censor, and shut down pregnancy care centers across the country. We’re pleased these centers will be free to continue their life-saving service in the community.”
Delaware’s Senate Bill 300, which went into effect last year, imposed government-compelled speech upon the pregnancy care centers by requiring them to post disclaimers within their facilities and in all their advertising materials that they do not have a licensed medical provider on staff directly supervising the provision of services. The lawsuit explained how such a disclaimer is false, burdensome, and limits the centers’ digital advertising options, thus impeding their freedom of speech.
