View
228
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
8/10/2019 14-3495 Garden State Equality Brief
1/44
14-1941, 14-3495
IN THE
United States Court of AppealsFOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
JOHN DOE, by and through Jack Doe and Jane Doe; JACK DOE,
individually and on behalf of his son, John Doe; JANE DOE,
individually and on behalf of her son, John Doe,
Appellants,
v.
CHRISTOPHER J. CHRISTIE, Governor of the State of New Jersey,
in his official capacity; GARDEN
STATE
EQUALITY
, Appellees.
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE
GARDEN STATE EQUALITY
d
MICHAEL GLUCK
ANDRE W BAYER
GLUCKWALRATH LLP
428 River View Plaza
Trenton, New Jersey 08611
(609) 278-3900
SHANNON P. MINTER
CHRISTOPHER F. STOLL
AMY WHELAN
NATIONAL CENTER FORLESBIAN RIGHTS
870 Market Street, Suite 370
San Francisco, California 94102
(415) 392-6257
DAVID S. FLUGMAN
FRANK M. HOLOZUBIEC
SHIREEN A. BARDAY
ANDREW C. ORR
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
601 Lexington Avenue
New York, New York 10022
(212) 446-4800
and
ANDREW J. WELZ
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
655 Fifteenth Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 879-5000
Attorneys for Appellee Garden State Equality
Case: 14-3495 Document: 003111795648 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/17/2014
8/10/2019 14-3495 Garden State Equality Brief
2/44
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1, and Third CircuitLocal Appellate Rule 26.1, Garden State Eualit! here"! #a$es the follo%in&
disclosures'
1. For non(&o)ern#ental corporate parties please list all parent corporations'
*one
2. For non(&o)ern#ental corporate parties please list all pu"licl! heldco#panies that hold 1+ or #ore of the part!-s stoc$'
*one
. /f there is a pu"licl! held corporation %hich is not a part! to the proceedin&
"efore this Court "ut %hich has as a financial interest in the outco#e of the
proceedin&, please identif! all such parties and specif! the nature of thefinancial interest or interests'
*one
0.
/n all "an$ruptc! appeals counsel for the de"tor or trustee of the "an$ruptc!
estate #ust list' 1 the de"tor, if not identified in the case caption 2 the#e#"ers of the creditors- co##ittee or the top 2+ unsecured creditors and,
an! entit! not na#ed in the caption %hich is acti)e participant in the"an$ruptc! proceedin&. /f the de"tor or trustee is not participatin& in the
appeal, this infor#ation #ust "e pro)ided "! appellant.
*3A
Case: 14-3495 Document: 003111795648 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/17/2014
8/10/2019 14-3495 Garden State Equality Brief
3/44
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES AND PROCEEDINGS ......................... 1
COUNTERSTATEMENT OF THE ISSUES ON REVIEW ............................... 1
COUNTERSTATEMENT OF THE CASE ........................................................... 2
COUNTERSTATEMENT OF FACTS .................................................................. 5
A. Enactment Of A3371. ............................................................................ 5
(i) The Legislatures Finding That Being a! "s #$t An
"llness. ......................................................................................... 5
(ii) The Legislatures Finding That %e&ual Orientati$n
'hange Eff$rts Are "neffectie And $tentiall! *armful. ......... +
B. r$cedural *ist$r! Bel$,. ..................................................................1-
(i) TheKing'ase. ..........................................................................1-
(ii) The 'ase At "ssue. ....................................................................1
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .............................................................................14
STANDARD OF REVIEW ...................................................................................15
ARGUMENT ..........................................................................................................16
I. THIS COURTS OPINION IN KINGFORECLOSES
APPELLANTS FREE SPEECH AND FREE E!ERCISE
CLAIMS. ......................................................................................................16
A. This '$urt Alread! *as *eld That A3371 /$es #$t '$nstitute
"m0ermissile 2ie,0$int /iscriminati$n. ..........................................1
B. This '$urt Alread! *as *eld That A3371 /$es #$t '$nstitute
"m0ermissile '$ntent4Based /iscriminati$n. ...................................1
'. This '$urt Alread! *as *eld That A3371 Adances An
"m0$rtant $ernment "nterest. ..........................................................-
Case: 14-3495 Document: 003111795648 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/17/2014
8/10/2019 14-3495 Garden State Equality Brief
4/44
ii
/. This '$urt Alread! *as *eld That A3371 /$es #$t 6estrict$re %0eech Than #ecessar! T$ Achiee The %tates "nterest. ........1
E. A3371 /$es #$t 2i$late A00ellants 6ight T$ 6eceie
"nf$rmati$n. .........................................................................................
(i) A3371 /$es #$t reent A00ellants Fr$m 6eceiing"nf$rmati$n. ...............................................................................
(ii) There "s #$ 6ight T$ 6eceie "nf$rmati$n 8h$se
Transmissi$n The %tate a! 2alidl! 6estrict. .........................5
F. This '$urt Alread! *as *eld That A3371 /$es #$t 2i$lateThe First Amendment 6ight T$ Free E&ercise Of 6eligi$n. ..............7
II. THE DISTRICT COURT CORRECTLY HELD THAT A""#1DOES NOT VIOLATE APPELLANTS PARENTAL RIGHTS...........2#
A. A3371 /$es #$t "nterfere 8ith arent4'hild 6elati$nshi0s..............
B. arental 6ights Are #$t As$lute And /$ #$t "nclude A 6ight
T$ %u9ect 'hildren T$ edical Treatments /eemed *armfulOr "neffectie B! The %tate. ...............................................................
CONCLUSION......................................................................................................."5
Case: 14-3495 Document: 003111795648 Page: 4 Date Filed: 11/17/2014
8/10/2019 14-3495 Garden State Equality Brief
5/44
iii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page
Ca$e$
Abigail Alliancefor Better Access to Developmental Drugs v. von Eschenbach:
;5 F.3d +5 (/.'. 'ir. --7) ..............................................................................3-
Anspach ex rel. Anspach v. City of Phila., Dept. of Pub. Health:
5-3 F.3d 5+ (3d 'ir. --7) .................................................................................
B. of Euc., !slan "rees #nion $ree %ch. Dist. &o. '( v. Pico:;57
8/10/2019 14-3495 Garden State Equality Brief
6/44
i
King v. 3overnor of &e* ersey:7+7 F.3d 1+ (3d 'ir. -1;) ......................................................................... 0assim
-eyer v. &ebras4a:
+
8/10/2019 14-3495 Garden State Equality Brief
7/44
%ammon v. &.. B. of -e. Exam/rs:++ F.3d +3 (3d 'ir. 15) ...................................................................................
%chuyl4ill Energy )es., !nc. v. Pa. Po*er 6 8ight Co.:
113 F.3d ;-5 (3d 'ir. 17) .................................................................................15
%orrell v. !-% Health !nc.:131 %. 't. +53 (-11) ..........................................................................................3
7a. %tate B. of Pharmacy v. 7a. Citi9ens Consumer Council, !nc.:
;5 .%TAT.A##. ? ;5@145; ............................................................................... 0assim
#.>.%TAT.A##.? ;5@1455 ........................................................................................3-
R&'e$
Fed. 6. 'i. . ; .....................................................................................................1;
#.>. 't. 6. ;@7;47A ..................................................................................................7
Case: 14-3495 Document: 003111795648 Page: 7 Date Filed: 11/17/2014
8/10/2019 14-3495 Garden State Equality Brief
8/44
STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES AND PROCEEDINGS
On %e0temer 11: -1;: this '$urt issued an $0ini$n inKing v. 3overnor of
&e* ersey: 7+7 F.3d 1+ (3d 'ir. -1;): ,hich affirmed the dismissal ! the
8/10/2019 14-3495 Garden State Equality Brief
9/44
! religi$us c$ncerns: and the la, is generall! a00licale t$ all licensed mental
health 0r$fessi$nals.
3. 8hether the /istrict '$urt c$rrectl! held that A3371 d$es n$t infringe
u0$n A00ellants >ac= and >ane /$es rights t$ direct the u0ringing $f their child.
COUNTERSTATEMENT OF THE CASE
Eer! $ne $f the claims and arguments raised ! A00ellants in this a00eal is
f$recl$sed as a matter $f c$ntr$lling Third 'ircuit la,. On %e0temer 11: -1;:
this '$urt issued its decisi$n inKing v. 3overnor of &e* erseyDa case in ,hich
A00ellants att$rne!s: re0resenting seeral 0ractiti$ners and su00$rters $f se&ual
$rientati$n change eff$rts ($r %O'E): raised nearl! identical claims and
arguments as A00ellants raise hereDaffirming the c$nstituti$nalit! $f A3371 and
dismissing the First Amendment freed$m $f s0eech and free e&ercise $f religi$n
claims asserted therein. 7+7 F.3d 1+.1 Th$ugh theKing$0ini$n ,as issued three
,ee=s before the! filed their $0ening rief: A00ellants largel! ign$re King and:
instead: 0r$ceed t$ reiterate the 0recise arguments that this '$urt re9ected in that
case. But A00ellants cann$t esca0e the fact that King is directl! $n 0$int and
c$m0els the same result here@ affirmance $f the /istrict '$urts ruling dismissing
A00ellants la,suit and affirming the c$nstituti$nalit! $f A3371.
1
8/10/2019 14-3495 Garden State Equality Brief
10/44
3
As this '$urt f$und in King: the %tate $f #e, >erse! 0r$0erl! acted ,ithin
its r$ad 0$,ers t$ regulate the actiities $f 0r$fessi$nals $0erating under state
licensure ,hen it ad$0ted A3371. The la, d$es $ne thing and $ne thing $nl!@
0r$hiits mental health 0r$fessi$nals licensed ! the %tate $f #e, >erse! fr$m
engaging in c$nduct that see=s t$ change the se&ual $rientati$n $f min$r 0atients.
As this '$urt n$ted in King: the la, d$es n$t 0reent these c$unsel$rs fr$m
engaging in a 0ulic dial$gue $n h$m$se&ualit! $r se&ual $rientati$n changeDit
0r$hiits $nl! a 0r$fessi$nal 0ractice that is: in this instance: carried $ut thr$ugh
eral c$mmunicati$n. 7+7 F.3d at 33. Bef$re 0assing the ill !
$er,helming margins in $th h$uses: the #e, >erse! legislature heard and
c$nsidered eidence and testim$n!: including statements fr$m %O'E suri$rs
and the nati$ns m$st 0r$minent mental health $rganiCati$ns. That rec$rd: ,hich
this '$urt has descried as sustantial: dem$nstrated that $er the last fe,
decades a numer $f ,ell4=n$,n: re0utale 0r$fessi$nal and scientific
$rganiCati$ns hae 0ulicl! c$ndemned the 0ractice $f %O'E: e&0ressing seri$us
c$ncerns a$ut its 0$tential t$ inflict harm. !. at 3. Based $n this eidence:
the #e, >erse! legislature c$ncluded that #e, >erse! has a c$m0elling interest in
0r$tecting the 0h!sical and 0s!ch$l$gical ,ell4eing $f min$rs: and in 0r$tecting
them fr$m seri$us harms caused ! se&ual $rientati$n change eff$rts. #.>.%TAT.
A##.? ;5@145;(n).
Case: 14-3495 Document: 003111795648 Page: 10 Date Filed: 11/17/2014
8/10/2019 14-3495 Garden State Equality Brief
11/44
;
As e&0lained in further detail el$,: m$st $f the arguments A00ellants
adance here ,ere raised: and re9ected ! this '$urt: in King. *ere: as in King:
A00ellants argue that A3371 c$nstitutes unc$nstituti$nal ie,0$int and c$ntent
discriminati$n that cann$t ,ithstand strict scrutin!. But inKing: this '$urt u0held
A3371 as a regulati$n $f 0r$fessi$nal s0eech under intermediate scrutin!Da ruling
that a00lies ,ith eual f$rce in this case. *ere: as inKing: laintiffs argue that
A3371 unc$nstituti$nall! urdens their free e&ercise $f religi$n. But inKing: this
'$urt re9ected that argument: finding instead that A3371 is a neutral la, $f general
a00licailit!Da ruling that als$ a00lies euall! in this case.
And ,hile >ac= and >ane /$e raise a ne, argument here that A3371 urdens
their fundamental rights as 0arents t$ direct the u0ringing $f their child: A3371
d$es n$t restrict the c$nduct $f 0arents in an! ,a!. "n an! case: 0arental rights d$
n$t include the auth$rit! t$ c$m0el state4licensed 0r$fessi$nals t$ 0r$ide a
treatment that the state has reas$nal! determined t$ e unsafe and de$id $f an!
medical enefit. ien: as the '$urt f$und in King: the sustantial eidence $f
0$tential harm (and asence $f eidence $f effectieness) ass$ciated ,ith %O'E:
this '$urts decisi$n inKingd$$ms this ne, claim as ,ell.
A3371 im0licates the m$st asic 0$,er $f the %tate@ t$ 0r$tect the health and
safet! $f the 0ulic (and in this case: ulnerale !$uth) fr$m danger$us 0ractices
Case: 14-3495 Document: 003111795648 Page: 11 Date Filed: 11/17/2014
8/10/2019 14-3495 Garden State Equality Brief
12/44
5
! regulating the actiities $f licensed 0r$fessi$nals. This '$urt sh$uld affirm the
/istrict '$urts dismissal $f A00ellants '$m0laint.
COUNTERSTATEMENT OF FACTS
A.
E(a)%*e(% O+ A""#1.
#e, >erse! enacted A3371 ased $n its finding that se&ual $rientati$n
change eff$rts are ineffectie and carr! significant ris= $f harm. King: 7+7 F.3d at
14. "n reaching that c$nclusi$n: the #e, >erse! legislature relied $n the ie,s
$f the leading medical and mental health $rganiCati$ns in the field that %O'E is
ineffectie: danger$us: and can lead t$ de0ressi$n: guilt: hel0lessness:
h$0elessness: shame: s$cial ,ithdra,al: suicidalit!: andG sustance ause: am$ng
$ther effects. !. at (citing American s!ch$l$gical Ass$ciati$n (AA)
6e0$rt (A00endi& (A00.) 73 ('$m0laint E&. ': American s!ch$l$gical
Ass$ciati$n: 6e0$rt $f the American s!ch$l$gical Ass$ciati$n Tas= F$rce $n
A00r$0riate Thera0eutic 6es0$nses t$ %e&ual Orientati$n (--))). %ee #.>.
%TAT.A##. ? ;5@145;.
(i)
The Legislatures Finding That Being a! "s #$t An "llness.
Eff$rts t$ cure se&ual $rientati$n date ac= t$ at least the mid4t,entieth
centur!: ef$re the m$dern medical c$mmunit! rec$gniCed that eing ga! is n$t an
illness. (%eeA00. 3+-: 3+5: 37147 (/eclarati$n $f reg$r! *ere=: h./.) (n$ting
that h$m$se&ualit! ,as rem$ed fr$m the /iagn$stic and %tatistical anual $f
ental /is$rders in 173).) Once the medical c$mmunit! rec$gniCed that eing
Case: 14-3495 Document: 003111795648 Page: 12 Date Filed: 11/17/2014
8/10/2019 14-3495 Garden State Equality Brief
13/44
+
ga! is n$t a disease: the rati$nale f$r tr!ing t$ cure it ! changing an indiiduals
se&ual $rientati$n ceased t$ e&ist. (!. at 37.) The #e, >erse! legislature
rec$gniCed as much: finding that Heing lesian: ga!: $r ise&ual is n$t a disease:
dis$rder: illness: deficienc!: $r sh$rtc$ming and Hthat ma9$r 0r$fessi$nal
ass$ciati$ns $f mental health 0ractiti$ners and researchers in the .%TAT.A##. ? ;5@145;).
(ii)
The Legislatures Finding That %e&ual Orientati$n 'hangeEff$rts Are "neffectie And $tentiall! *armful.
The legislature als$ relied $n the 9udgments $f inde0endent 0r$fessi$nal
$rganiCati$ns that 0$ssess s0ecialiCed =n$,ledge and e&0erience c$ncerning
%O'E: and ,hich hae s0$=en ,ith G urgenc! and s$lidarit! regarding their
c$nclusi$n that se&ual $rientati$n change eff$rts are ineffectie: and 0resent ris=s
$f seri$us harm. King: 7+7 F.3d at 3. %Gustantial eidence su00$rted the
#e, >erse! legislatures c$nclusi$n that %O'E is ineffectie. !. at 3. F$r
e&am0le: the American Academ! $f 'hild and Ad$lescent s!chiatr! f$und that
there is neitherG eidence that se&ual $rientati$n can e altered thr$ugh thera0!:
n$rG an! medicall! alid asis f$r attem0ting t$ 0reent h$m$se&ualit!: ,hich is
n$t an illness. #.>.%TAT.A##. ? ;5@145;(=). The #ati$nal Ass$ciati$n $f %$cial
8$r=ers has similarl! c$ncluded that nG$ data dem$nstrates that re0aratie $r
c$nersi$n thera0ies are effectie. #.>. %TAT. A##. ? ;5@145;(h). #umer$us
Case: 14-3495 Document: 003111795648 Page: 13 Date Filed: 11/17/2014
8/10/2019 14-3495 Garden State Equality Brief
14/44
7
$ther such $rganiCati$ns hae als$ c$ncluded that there is n$ credile eidence
that %O'E c$unseling is effectie. King: 7+7 F.3d at 3 (citing #.>.%TAT.A##.
? ;5@145;).
"n additi$n t$ the 0reailing medical ie, that se&ual $rientati$n change
eff$rts are n$t effectie: the legislature als$ relied $n sustantial eidence that
th$se 0ractices can cause seri$us harm. "n 0articular: the legislature relied $n a
legislatie rec$rd dem$nstratingG that $er the last fe, decades a numer $f
,ell4=n$,n: re0utale 0r$fessi$nal and scientific $rganiCati$ns hae 0ulicl!
c$ndemned the 0ractice $f %O'E: e&0ressing seri$us c$ncerns a$ut its 0$tential
t$ inflict harm. King: 7+7 F.3d at 3. F$r e&am0le: the AA has ,arned that
se&ual $rientati$n change eff$rts can 0$se critical health ris=s t$ lesian: ga!:
ise&ual: and transgender (LBT) 0e$0le: including c$nfusi$n: de0ressi$n:
guilt: hel0lessness: h$0elessness: shame: s$cial ,ithdra,al: andG suicidalit!:
am$ng $ther negatie c$nseuences. !. at (citing #.>. %TAT. A##.
? ;5@145;()). The American Academ! $f 'hild and Ad$lescent s!chiatr! has
similarl! c$ncluded that eff$rts t$ change indiiduals se&ual $rientati$n can
undermine self4esteem: c$nnectedness and caring: ,hich areG im0$rtant
0r$tectie fact$rs against suicidal ideati$n and attem0ts. #.>. %TAT. A##.
? ;5@145;(=). The #e, >erse! legislature c$nsidered and relied u0$n these
0r$fessi$nal $rganiCati$ns c$nclusi$ns: as ,ell as similar statements fr$m the
Case: 14-3495 Document: 003111795648 Page: 14 Date Filed: 11/17/2014
8/10/2019 14-3495 Garden State Equality Brief
15/44
American %ch$$l '$unsel$r Ass$ciati$n: American Academ! $f ediatrics:
American edical Ass$ciati$n: #ati$nal Ass$ciati$n $f %$cial 8$r=ers: American
'$unseling Ass$ciati$n: American s!ch$anal!tic Ass$ciati$n: and an American
*ealth OrganiCati$n (a regi$nal $ffice $f the 8$rld *ealth OrganiCati$n). !.
? ;5@145;(e)4(9): (l)Isee also King: 7+7 F.3d at 14 (n$ting that the legislature
G cited re0$rts: articles: res$luti$ns: and 0$siti$n statements fr$m re0utale
mental health $rganiCati$ns $00$sing %O'EG).
The legislature als$ relied u0$n research dem$nstrating that the ris=s $f
harm are es0eciall! great f$r min$rs. "t cited research c$ncluding that ga!: lesian:
and ise&ual !$ung adults ,h$ e&0erienced high leels $f famil! re9ecti$n in
ad$lescence ased $n their se&ual $rientati$n ,ere .; times m$re li=el! t$ re0$rt
haing attem0ted suicide and 5. times m$re li=el! t$ re0$rt high leels $f
de0ressi$n than 0eers fr$m families re0$rting n$ $r l$, leels $f re9ecti$n. #.>.
%TAT. A##. ? ;5@145;(m). "ndeed: this '$urt rec$gniCed that the #e, >erse!
legislatures em0irical 9udgment $n the 0$tential harm t$ min$rs ,as highl!
0lausile: n$ting that iGt is n$t t$$ far a lea0 in l$gic t$ c$nclude that a min$r
client might suffer 0s!ch$l$gical harm if re0eatedl! t$ld ! an auth$rit! figure that
her se&ual $rientati$nDa fundamental as0ect $f her identit!Dis an undesirale
c$nditi$n. King: 7+7 F.3d at 3.
Case: 14-3495 Document: 003111795648 Page: 15 Date Filed: 11/17/2014
8/10/2019 14-3495 Garden State Equality Brief
16/44
"n additi$n t$ the ie,s $f the medical and mental health c$mmunit!: the
legislature als$ receied testim$n! fr$m indiiduals ,h$ had een su9ected t$
se&ual $rientati$n change eff$rts as min$rs. These indiiduals descried the harm
the! e&0erienced as a result $f underg$ing se&ual $rientati$n change eff$rts. F$r
e&am0le: $ne indiidual e&0lained that he ,as made t$ feel shame and engage in
a fruitless la$r that left himG sad and r$=en. (%eeA00. ;5745 (E&hiit ; t$
Ba!er Aff.: Testim$n! $f $rdechai Le$itC: '$4E&ec. /ir.: >JK: ef$re #.>.
Asseml! 8$men 'hildren '$mmittee: *earing $n A3371: >une 13: -13).)
An$ther rec$unted h$, the se&ual $rientati$n eff$rts he under,ent dr$e him t$
the rin= $f suicide and led t$ de0ressi$n: 0eri$ds $f h$melessness: and drug
ause. (%eeA00. ;+14+ (E&hiit 5 t$ Ba!er Aff.: Testim$n! $f 6!an Mendall
ef$re #.>. Asseml! 8$men 'hildren '$mmittee: *earing $n A3371: >une 13:
-13).)
"n light $f the findings $f these leading medical and mental health
$rganiCati$ns: the cited research: and the testim$n! 0resented t$ its c$mmittees: the
legislature determined that #e, >erse! has a c$m0elling interest in 0r$tecting the
0h!sical and 0s!ch$l$gical ,ell4eing $f min$rs and 0r$tecting them fr$m
seri$us harms caused ! se&ual $rientati$n change eff$rts. #.>. %TAT. A##.
? ;5@145;(n).
Case: 14-3495 Document: 003111795648 Page: 16 Date Filed: 11/17/2014
8/10/2019 14-3495 Garden State Equality Brief
17/44
1-
B.
P,-)e&,a' H/$%-,0 Be'-.
(i) TheKing'ase.
%$$n after $ern$r 'hristie signed A3371 int$ la,: a gr$u0 $f licensed
thera0ists and 0r$fessi$nal $rganiCati$ns re0resented ! the same c$unsel as
A00ellants here filed suit in the /istrict '$urt: challenging A3371 as a i$lati$n $f
their First Amendment rights t$ free s0eech and free e&ercise $f religi$n. King:
7+7 F.3d at -4. "n additi$n t$ their $,n claims: th$se 0laintiffs challenged the
la, $n ehalf $f their min$r clients under the First and F$urteenth Amendment.
!. at . All three named A00ellants here a00ear t$ hae sumitted declarati$ns
in su00$rt $f theKing0laintiffs claims. (Compare KingA00endi& (KingA00.)
537 (/eclarati$n $f >$hn /$e: in$r 'hild): 5; (/eclarati$n $f >ane /$e: $ther
$f in$r 'hild): and 5; (/eclarati$n $f >ac= /$e: Father $f in$r 'hild) *ith
A00. - (/eclarati$n $f >$hn /$e): 3 (/eclarati$n $f >ane /$e): and 7
(/eclarati$n $f >ac= /$e).)
The /istrict '$urt re9ected the King 0laintiffs claims in their entiret!:
finding that (1) the licensed thera0ists and 0r$fessi$nal $rganiCati$ns lac=ed
standing t$ assert claims $n ehalf $f the min$r clients: King: 7+7 F.3d at 3I ()
A3371 regulates c$nduct: rather than s0eech: that the la, ,as thus n$t su9ect t$
heightened First Amendment scrutin!: and that the la, ,as thus c$nstituti$nal
Case: 14-3495 Document: 003111795648 Page: 17 Date Filed: 11/17/2014
8/10/2019 14-3495 Garden State Equality Brief
18/44
11
under a lesser standard $f reie,: i.I and (3) A3371 did n$t i$late the King
0laintiffs right t$ the free e&ercise $f religi$n: i..at 34;.
On a00eal: this '$urt affirmed the /istrict '$urts decisi$n: aleit under a
different rati$nale as regards the freed$m $f s0eech claim. "n addressing that
claim: this '$urt held that %O'E c$unseling in$les 0r$fessi$nal s0eech and that:
as such: A3371 ,as su9ect t$ intermediate First Amendment scrutin!. !.at 37.
#$ting that the alue $f aG 0r$fessi$nals serices stems largel! fr$m her ailit!
t$ a00l! G s0ecialiCed =n$,ledge t$ a clients indiidual circumstances: and that
clients $rdinaril! hae n$ ch$ice ut t$ 0lace their trust in these 0r$fessi$nals:
and: ! e&tensi$n: in the %tate that licenses them: this '$urt held that A3371 ,as
c$nstituti$nal $nl! if it directl! adanceedG the %tates interest in 0r$tecting its
citiCens fr$m harmful $r ineffectie 0r$fessi$nal 0ractices and ,asG n$ m$re
e&tensie than necessar! t$ sere that interest. !. at 3433. Finding that A3371
satisfied this standard: this '$urt re9ected theKing a00ellants free s0eech claims.
!. at ;-4;1. This '$urt als$ re9ected theKing a00ellants free e&ercise claims:
and agreed ,ith the /istrict '$urt that the King A00ellants lac=ed standing t$
assert claims $n ehalf $f their min$r clients. !. at ;14;;. Alth$ugh the King
a00ellants had asserted claims ased $n their min$r clients right t$ receie
inf$rmati$n: this '$urts finding that the Kinga00ellants lac=ed standing t$ assert
claims $n ehalf $f their min$r clients $iated the need t$ c$nsider th$se claims
Case: 14-3495 Document: 003111795648 Page: 18 Date Filed: 11/17/2014
8/10/2019 14-3495 Garden State Equality Brief
19/44
1
$n a00eal. !. at ;34;;. Finall!: ,hile the King a00ellants had als$ asserted
claims $n ehalf $f their min$r clients 0arents in the /istrict '$urt: the!
aand$ned th$se claims $n a00eal. !.at ;3 n.+.
(ii) The 'ase At "ssue.
8hile the King case remained 0ending in the /istrict '$urt: A00ellants
>$hn: >ac=: and >ane /$e filed their '$m0laint in the instant litigati$n: raising
largel! identical First Amendment claims as the King0laintiffs raised. (A00. 35:
53457 ('$m0laint f$r /eclarat$r! and "n9unctie 6elief and /amages).)
A00ellants als$ raised the right t$ inf$rmati$n and 0arental rights claims that had
een m$$ted and aand$ned in King: res0ectiel!. (!. at 54+-.) "n su00$rt $f
their claims: A00ellants filed declarati$ns fr$m /rs. 6$nald #e,man: 'hrist$0her
6$si=: and >$se0h #ic$l$si: all $f ,h$m ,ere either indiidual 0laintiffs $r
memers $f the 0r$fessi$nal $rganiCati$n 0laintiffs inKing. (Compare, e.g.: A00.
3 (/eclarati$n $f 6$nald #e,man: h./.): and ;+ (/eclarati$n $f 'hrist$0her
6$si=: h./.) *ithKingA00. 17; (/eclarati$n $f /r. 6$nald #e,man): and 17
(/eclarati$n $f /r. 'hrist$0her 6$si=).) A00ellants did n$t indicate that their case
,as related t$ King ,hen the! filed their '$m0laint: s$ the case ,as initiall!
assigned t$ an$ther 9udge: ef$re eing transferred t$ >udge Freda 8$lfs$n $n
#$emer ;: -13. (A00. 74 (O0ini$n).)
Case: 14-3495 Document: 003111795648 Page: 19 Date Filed: 11/17/2014
8/10/2019 14-3495 Garden State Equality Brief
20/44
13
After the /istrict '$urt issued its decisi$n in King$n #$emer : -13:
>udge 8$lfs$n as=ed A00ellants h$, the! ,ished t$ 0r$ceed ,ith this litigati$n
gien the sustantial $erla0 et,een King and the instant matter. (A00. +
(O0ini$n).) A00ellants declined t$ directl! challenge the /istrict '$urts King
$0ini$n: and instead indicated that the! ,$uld rel! $n their initial riefing and
sustantiall! the same la, and arguments raised in King: ut as a00lied instead
t$ . . . min$r indiiduals and their 0arents as $00$sed t$ licensed thera0ists. (!.)
On >ul! 31: -1;: after lifting a sta! $f the case that it had im0$sed 0ending
res$luti$n $f a 0etiti$n f$r ,rit $f certiorari filed ! the 0laintiffs in the #inth
'ircuitPic4uplitigati$n (,hich 0etiti$n ,as re9ected ! the %u0reme '$urt):the
/istrict '$urt issued its $0ini$n re9ecting A00ellants claims in their entiret!.
6el!ing $n its h$lding inKingthat A3371 regulates c$nduct rather than s0eech: the
/istrict '$urt re9ected A00ellants free s0eech claims: including their right t$
inf$rmati$n claim. (!. at 141.) "n additi$n: n$ting that A00ellants here raise
irtuall! identical arguments: and rel! $n the same case la, and reas$ning in
su00$rt $f their free e&ercise claim as the King a00ellants: the /istrict '$urt
re9ected that claim as ,ell. (!. at 14-.) #e&t: $sering that the fundamental
rights $f 0arents d$ n$t include the right t$ ch$$se a s0ecific medical $r mental
A00ellants a00ealed the /istrict '$urts sta! $rder t$ this '$urt: ut n$ acti$n
,as ta=en $n that a00eal: ,hich is n$, m$$t gien the /istrict '$urts issuance$f its decisi$n dis0$sing $f the underl!ing case.
Case: 14-3495 Document: 003111795648 Page: 20 Date Filed: 11/17/2014
8/10/2019 14-3495 Garden State Equality Brief
21/44
1;
health treatment that the state has reas$nal! deemed harmful $r ineffectie: the
/istrict '$urt re9ected A00ellants 0arental rights claims. (!.at -4;.) Finall!:
the /istrict '$urt re9ected A00ellants claim that arden %tate Eualit! lac=ed
standing and failed t$ satisf! the standard f$r interenti$n under Federal 6ule $f
'iil r$cedure ;.3 (!.at 1141.)
A00ellants filed their timel! n$tice $f a00eal $n >ul! 31: -1;: and filed
their $0ening rief $n Oct$er 1: -1;.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
A00ellants free s0eech and free e&ercise claims fail under the anal!sis set
f$rth in the King $0ini$n. 2irtuall! all $f the arguments raised ! A00ellants
hereinDincluding that A3371 c$nstitutes ie,0$int and c$ntent4ased
discriminati$n su9ect t$ strict scrutin!: that it d$es n$t adance an im0$rtant
g$ernment interest: that it restricts m$re s0eech than is necessar!: and that it
urdens free e&ercise ecause it is neither neutral n$r generall! a00licaleDall
,ere raised and re9ected ! this '$urt in King. And the $nl! argument n$t
e&0ressl! addressed in that $0ini$n: that A00ellants right t$ receie inf$rmati$n is
i$lated: necessaril! fails under King ecause there is n$ c$nstituti$nal right t$
3 A00ellants did n$t a00eal the /istrict '$urts ruling 0ermitting arden %tateEualit! t$ interene in this litigati$n.
Case: 14-3495 Document: 003111795648 Page: 21 Date Filed: 11/17/2014
8/10/2019 14-3495 Garden State Equality Brief
22/44
15
receie inf$rmati$n that ma! e alidl! 0r$scried ! the state. (%ee infra at
%ecti$n ".)
>ac= and >ane /$es claim that A3371 i$lates their fundamental rights t$
direct the u0ringing $f their child similarl! fails. As an initial matter: this claim
fails $n its face ecause A3371 d$es n$t regulate 0arents at allI instead: it regulates
$nl! the 0r$fessi$nal actiities $f licensed thera0ists. $re$er: the %u0reme
'$urt and this '$urt hae made clear that 0arental rights are n$t as$lute and d$
n$t ar reas$nale state regulati$ns t$ 0r$tect childrens health and safet!.
Because this '$urt in King held that A3371 is such a la,: >ac= and >ane /$e
cann$t sh$, that the! hae a c$nstituti$nal right t$ reuire the state t$ 0ermit
licensed thera0ists t$ su9ect their min$r s$n t$ the harmful 0ractices it ars. (%ee
infra at %ecti$n "".)
STANDARD OF REVIEW
This '$urt reie,s a district c$urts decisi$n t$ grant a m$ti$n t$ dismiss e
novo: and must acce0t all factual allegati$ns as true: c$nstrue the c$m0laint in the
light m$st fa$rale t$ the 0laintiff: and determine ,hether: under an! reas$nale
reading $f the c$m0laint: the 0laintiff ma! e entitled t$ relief. Phillips v. County
of Allegheny: 515 F.3d ;: 33 (3d 'ir. --). The '$urt need n$t: h$,eer
acce0t as true unsu00$rted c$nclusi$ns and un,arranted inferences. %chuyl4ill
Energy )es., !nc. v. Pa. Po*er 6 8ight Co.: 113 F.3d ;-5: ;17 (3d 'ir. 17).
Case: 14-3495 Document: 003111795648 Page: 22 Date Filed: 11/17/2014
8/10/2019 14-3495 Garden State Equality Brief
23/44
1+
ARGUMENT
I.
THIS COURTS OPINION IN KINGFORECLOSES APPELLANTS
FREE SPEECH AND FREE E!ERCISE CLAIMS.
The free s0eech and free e&ercise challenges t$ A3371 raised ! A00ellants
here ,ere full! litigated and re9ected ! this '$urt inKing9ust t,$ m$nths ag$. "n
King: this '$urt held that A3371 is a regulati$n $f 0r$fessi$nal s0eech ecause it
,as enacted 0ursuant t$ the %tates interest in 0r$tecting its citiCens fr$m
ineffectie $r harmful 0r$fessi$nal serices. King: 7+7 F.3d at 35. Osering
that %tates hae traditi$nall! en9$!ed r$ad auth$rit! t$ regulate 0r$fessi$ns as a
means $f 0r$tecting the 0ulic: this '$urt held that intermediate scrutin! is the
a00r$0riate standard $f reie, f$r regulati$ns $f 0r$fessi$nal s0eech such as
A3371. !. at 3;. This '$urt then articulated the a00licale test under that
standard t$ e ,hether the regulati$n in uesti$n directl! adances the %tates
sustantial interest in 0r$tecting its citiCens fr$m harmful $r ineffectie
0r$fessi$nal 0ractices and is n$t m$re e&tensie than necessar! t$ sere that
interest. !. at ;. Finall!: finding that the %tates interest in 0r$tecting its
citiCens fr$m harmful 0r$fessi$nal 0ractices is unuesti$nal! sustantial: and
that A3371 directl! adances that interest ,ith$ut regulating m$re e&tensiel! than
necessar!: this '$urt u0held the statute against the King a00ellants free s0eech
challenge. !.at 374;-.
Case: 14-3495 Document: 003111795648 Page: 23 Date Filed: 11/17/2014
8/10/2019 14-3495 Garden State Equality Brief
24/44
17
This '$urts c$nclusi$n that A3371 is su9ect t$: and satisfies: intermediate
scrutin! f$recl$ses the arguments that A00ellants adance here in su00$rt $f their
free s0eech claim. "ndeed: this '$urts $0ini$n in King suarel! re9ected
A00ellants arguments that A3371 (1) c$nstitutes ie,0$int discriminati$nI ()
am$unts t$ c$ntent4ased discriminati$n ,hich is su9ect t$ strict scrutin!I (3) fails
t$ adance an im0$rtant g$ernment interestI and (;) restricts m$re s0eech than
necessar! t$ achiee the states interest.; Alth$ugh A00ellants adance an
additi$nal argument here that ,as n$t ef$re the '$urt in KingDthat A3371
i$lates their right t$ receie inf$rmati$nDas descried el$,: the '$urts $0ini$n
inKingf$recl$ses that claim as ,ell. Finall!: inKing: this '$urt re9ected the same
argument A00ellants adance here: that A3371 i$lates their right t$ the free
e&ercise $f religi$n.
; "n the riefing el$,: arden %tate Eualit! argued (and the /istrict '$urt
held) that A00ellants free s0eech claims can and sh$uld e dismissed $n the
gr$und that A3371 targets 0r$fessi$nal conuctand n$t speechas that term isdefined under First Amendment d$ctrine. 8hile arden %tate Eualit! eliees
that A3371 c$uld e affirmed under the anal!sis underta=en ! the /istrict'$urt: and ,ith$ut ,aier $f an! $f the arguments adanced in the /istrict
'$urt el$, regarding the c$nductNs0eech distincti$n: arden %tate Eualit!
agrees that A3371 easil! 0asses muster under the intermediate scrutin! standard
a00licale t$ regulati$ns $f 0r$fessi$nal s0eech as discussed in King: ,hichc$ntr$ls here.
Case: 14-3495 Document: 003111795648 Page: 24 Date Filed: 11/17/2014
8/10/2019 14-3495 Garden State Equality Brief
25/44
1
A.
T/$ C-&,% A',ea0 Ha$ He' Ta% A""#1 D-e$ N-% C-($%/%&%e
I*3e,*/$$/'e V/e3-/(% D/$),/*/(a%/-(.
A00ellants here insist that A3371 is a te&t$$= e&am0le $f ie,0$int
discriminati$n: a claim ,hich the! su00$rt ,ith ,h$le s,aths $f argument cut
and 0asted: eratim: fr$m the a00ellants riefing in King. (A00ellants Br. at
1.) But these arguments fare n$ etter the sec$nd time ar$und: as this '$urt has
clearl! held that A3371 d$es n$t discriminate $n the asis $f ie,0$int. "n
0articular: this '$urt in Kingre9ected the same argument adanced ! A00ellants
here: that A3371 0r$hiits them fr$m e&0ressing the ie,0$int that same4se&
attracti$nsG can e reduced $r eliminated: n$ting that such an inter0retati$n is a
misreading $f the statute. King: 7+7 F.3d at 37. (%ee A00ellants Br. at 1
(arguing that A3371 0recludes discussi$n $f the 0articular ie,0$int that
un,anted same4se& attracti$nG can e reduced $r eliminated).) This '$urt ,ent
$n t$ e&0lain that A3371 merel! 0r$hiits e&0ressing this ie,0$int in a er!
s0ecific ,a!D! actuall! rendering the 0r$fessi$nal serices that the! eliee t$
e effectie: and: thus: d$es n$t am$unt t$ im0ermissile ie,0$int
discriminati$n. King: 7+7 F.3d at 37.
8hile A00ellants here argue that this '$urts King decisi$n failed t$
adeuatel! gras0 h$, c$unsel$rs s0eech ,as infringed: i.e.: c$unsel$rs cann$t
c$unsel clients that un,anted same4se& attracti$nG can e reduced: ut can
c$unsel that un,anted same4se& attracti$nG sh$uld e enc$uraged: (A00ellants
Case: 14-3495 Document: 003111795648 Page: 25 Date Filed: 11/17/2014
8/10/2019 14-3495 Garden State Equality Brief
26/44
1
Br.at 1): A00ellants argument is ,ith$ut asis. "ndeed: this '$urts $0ini$n in
Kingmade clear that any0r$fessi$nal 0ractice . . . im0licitl! c$mmunicatesG the
ie,0$int that such 0ractice is effectie and eneficial: ut that tGhe 0r$hiiti$n
$f this meth$d $f c$mmunicating a 0articular ie,0$int . . . is n$t the t!0e $f
ie,0$int discriminati$n ,ith ,hich the First Amendment is c$ncerned. King:
7+7 F.3d at 37. TheKingdecisi$n thus ma=es clear that A3371 d$es n$t am$unt
t$ ie,0$int discriminati$n.
B.
T/$ C-&,% A',ea0 Ha$ He' Ta% A""#1 D-e$ N-% C-($%/%&%eI*3e,*/$$/'e C-(%e(%Ba$e D/$),/*/(a%/-(.
This '$urts King decisi$n similarl! f$recl$ses A00ellants argument that
A3371 am$unts t$ c$ntent4ased discriminati$n su9ect t$ strict scrutin!. !. at
3+ (8Ge re9ect laintiffs argument that A3371 sh$uld e su9ect t$ strict
scrutin! ecause it discriminates $n the asis $f c$ntent.). 8hile A00ellants
c$rrectl! n$te that this '$urt f$und that A3371 discriminates $n the asis $f
c$ntent: the! fail t$ rec$gniCe this '$urts anal!sis that: in the c$nte&t $f lesser
0r$tected categ$ries $f s0eech: such as 0r$fessi$nal s0eech regulated ! A3371:
a statute d$es n$t trigger strict scrutin! ,Ghen the asis f$r the c$ntent
discriminati$n c$nsists entirel! $f the er! reas$n the entire class $f s0eech at issue
is 0r$scriale. !.(u$ting).A.7. v. City of %t. Paul: 5-5
8/10/2019 14-3495 Garden State Equality Brief
27/44
-
fr$m ineffectie $r harmful 0r$fessi$nal 0ractices is 0recisel! the reas$n #e,
>erse! targeted %O'E c$unseling ,ith A3371. King: 7+7 F.3d at 37.
Theref$re: this '$urt c$ncluded: A3371 d$es n$t trigger strict scrutin! !
discriminating $n the asis $f c$ntent in an im0ermissile manner. !.
C.
T/$ C-&,% A',ea0 Ha$ He' Ta% A""#1 Aa()e$ A(
I*3-,%a(% G-e,(*e(% I(%e,e$%.
This '$urts King $0ini$n similarl! re9ected A00ellants 0resent claim that
A3371 d$es n$t adance an im0$rtant g$ernment interest. (A00ellants Br. at
3+.) "ndeed: this '$urt f$und that: n$t $nl! is the %tates interest in 0r$tecting its
citiCens fr$m harmful 0r$fessi$nal 0ractices G unuesti$nal! sustantial: ut
hGere: #e, >erse!s stated interest is even stronger ecause A3371 see=s t$
0r$tect min$r clientsDa 0$0ulati$n that is es0eciall! ulnerale t$ such 0ractices.
King: 7+7 F.3d at 3743. This '$urt thus left n$ d$ut that the strength $f the
states interest ,as m$re than sufficient t$ satisf! intermediate scrutin!.
A00ellants claim that A3371 fails t$ adance the %tates interest fares n$
etter in its latest iterati$n. A00ellants: li=e the a00ellants in King: insist that the
legislatie 9ustificati$n f$r A3371 is 0ure s0eculati$n ased $n $0ini$n
statements: and am$unts t$ mGere disagreement ,ith the ie,0$int that
un,anted %%A can e changed. (A00ellants Br. at 3743.) But this '$urt
re9ected these same arguments in King: h$lding that a state legislature is n$t
c$nstituti$nall! reuired t$ ,ait f$r c$nclusie scientific eidence ef$re acting t$
Case: 14-3495 Document: 003111795648 Page: 27 Date Filed: 11/17/2014
8/10/2019 14-3495 Garden State Equality Brief
28/44
1
0r$tect its citiCens: and that tGhis is 0articularl! true ,hen a legislatures
em0irical 9udgment is highl! 0lausile: as . . . #e, >erse!s 9udgment is in this
case. King: 7+7 F.3d at 3. *aing een re9ected ! this '$urt in King:
A00ellants claim that A3371 d$es n$t adance an im0$rtant state interest fails
here as ,ell.
D.
T/$ C-&,% A',ea0 Ha$ He' Ta% A""#1 D-e$ N-% Re$%,/)% M-,e
S3ee) Ta( Ne)e$$a,0 T- A)/ee Te S%a%e$ I(%e,e$%.
Li=e their $ther free s0eech arguments: A00ellants claim that A3371
urdens far m$re s0eech than necessar! t$ achiee its 0ur0$rted interest is
similarl! f$recl$sed ! the King $0ini$n. (A00ellants Br. at 3.) "n King: this
'$urt $sered that the fit et,een the states interest and the means ! ,hich
the statute adances that interest need n$t necessaril! eG the single est
dis0$siti$n ut $ne ,h$se sc$0e is in 0r$0$rti$n t$ the interest sered: een if the
fit is im0erfect. King: 7+7 F.3d at 3 (citing Heffner v. -urphy: 7;5 F.3d 5+:
43 (3d 'ir. -1;)). This '$urt ,ent $n t$ re9ect theKinga00ellants arguments
that A3371 failed t$ satisf! that standard. King: 7+7 F.3d at ;-. A00ellants $ffer
n$ reas$n ,h! the '$urt sh$uld reach a c$ntrar! c$nclusi$n regarding the same
la, here.
Case: 14-3495 Document: 003111795648 Page: 28 Date Filed: 11/17/2014
8/10/2019 14-3495 Garden State Equality Brief
29/44
E.
A""#1 D-e$ N-% V/-'a%e A33e''a(%$ R/g% T- Re)e/e
I(+-,*a%/-(.
A00ellants $nl! free s0eech argument n$t s0ecificall! raised inKingis their
claim that A3371 i$lates their right t$ receie inf$rmati$n as a c$r$llar! $f the
right t$ s0ea=. (A00ellants Br. at 1;.) But the reas$ning $f the King$0ini$n
f$recl$ses that claim as ,ell. A00ellants cann$t identif! an! actual inf$rmati$n
that A3371 has 0reented them fr$m receiing. This is unsur0rising gien that: as
this '$urts $0ini$n in King e&0lains: A3371 d$es n$t 0reent the free fl$, $f
inf$rmati$n regarding %O'E $r an! $ther t$0ic. As A00ellants rief ma=es clear:
the inf$rmati$n t$ ,hich the! claim a First Amendment right $f access is sim0l!
%O'E c$unseling itself: and this '$urt has suarel! held that the state ma! alidl!
0r$scrie %O'E: al$ng ,ith the s0eech that 0ractice in$les. A00ellants $ffer n$
auth$rit! f$r their asserted right t$ receie c$unseling that c$unsel$rs hae n$ right
t$ 0r$ide. #$ne e&ists: and A00ellants right t$ inf$rmati$n claim fails
acc$rdingl!.
(i) A3371 /$es #$t reent A00ellants Fr$m 6eceiing
"nf$rmati$n.
At the $utset: A00ellants cann$t articulate ,hat inf$rmati$n A3371 has
0reented them fr$m receiing. 8hile ma=ing general references t$ critical
inf$rmati$n and inf$rmati$n ital t$ their mental health decisi$ns: A00ellants
$nl! e&am0les are discussi$ns $f %O'E c$unseling that see= t$ reduce $r
Case: 14-3495 Document: 003111795648 Page: 29 Date Filed: 11/17/2014
8/10/2019 14-3495 Garden State Equality Brief
30/44
8/10/2019 14-3495 Garden State Equality Brief
31/44
;
n$t asserting a right t$ receie inf$rmati$n as such: ut rather a desire t$ receie
inf$rmati$n in a 0articular ,a!@ during and as 0art $f actual %O'E thera0!:
,hichDas this '$urt alread! has heldDthe state ma! alidl! an.
That A00ellants are asserting an infringement $f their right t$ receie
inf$rmati$n in a s0ecific ,a!Das $00$sed t$ the right t$ receie it at allDis
undersc$red ! the m!riad $ther channels ! ,hich %O'E4related inf$rmati$n can
e e&changed $utside $f actual c$unseling. F$r e&am0le: A3371 d$es n$t 0reent
>$hn /$e fr$m receiing inf$rmati$n regarding %O'E $r an!thing else fr$m a
0r$fessi$nal G s0ea=ing t$ the 0ulic at large $r $ffering her 0ers$nal $0ini$n
$utside the c$nte&t $f actual c$unseling. King: 7+7 F.3d at 3. "ndeed: as l$ng as
the 0arties are n$t engaged in %O'E itself: the la, d$es n$t interfere at all,ith
discussi$ns $f %O'E c$unseling: e&0ressi$n $f the ie,0$int $f %O'E
c$unseling (seeA00ellants Br. at 15: 1): $r an! $ther e&change $f inf$rmati$n
et,een >$hn /$e and a licensed thera0ist in #e, >erse!. %eeKing: 7+7 F.3d at
37 (A3371 all$,s thera0istsG t$ e&0ress . . . their 0ers$nal $0ini$n regarding
%O'EG t$ an!$ne the! 0lease: including their min$r clients.).+
+ A3371 is thus n$thing li=e the statute in 7a. %tate B. of Pharmacy: $n ,hichA00ellants rel!. There: the %u0reme '$urt f$und that the la, singledG $ut
s0eech $f a 0articular c$ntent and s$ughtG t$ 0reent its disseminati$n
c$m0letel!. ;5
8/10/2019 14-3495 Garden State Equality Brief
32/44
8/10/2019 14-3495 Garden State Equality Brief
33/44
+
$ffer n$ e&0lanati$n f$r ,h! the states regulat$r! auth$rit! ased $n its interest
in 0r$tecting its citiCens fr$m ineffectie $r harmful 0r$fessi$nal serices ,$uld
a00l! ,ith an! less f$rce ,here the listener: rather than the s0ea=er: challenges the
statute. King: 7+7 F.3d at 35.7 "ndeed: the #inth 'ircuit re9ected the argument
that a 'alif$rnia statute irtuall! identical t$ A3771 i$lated min$rs rights t$
receie inf$rmati$n. %ee Pic4up v. Bro*n, 7;- F.3d 1-: 13 n. (th 'ir.):
cert. enie, 13; %. 't. 71 (-1;). "n s$ h$lding: the #inth 'ircuit f$und it
unnecessar! t$ anal!Ce min$rs rights t$ receie inf$rmati$n se0aratel! fr$m
thera0ists rights t$ s0ea=: in light $f the ,ell4estalished rule that the right t$
receie inf$rmati$n is an inherent c$r$llar! $f the rights $f free s0eech and 0ress.
%ee i. (u$ting-onteiro v. "empe #nion High %ch. Dist.,15 F.3d 1-: 1-7
n.5 (th 'ir. 1)). ien that tGhe right t$ listen is deriatie $f an indiiduals
right t$ s0ea=: and this '$urt has alread! held that licensed thera0ists d$ n$t hae
the right t$ 0erf$rm %O'E $n min$rs: this '$urt sh$uld reach the same c$nclusi$n
here. P3 Publ/g Co. v. Aichele: 7-5 F.3d 1: 1-- n. (3d 'ir.): cert. enie: 133 %.
't. 771 (-13).
7 A00ellants strain t$ c$m0are A3371 t$ a #e, >erse! statute all$,ing min$rs t$reuest admissi$n t$ 0s!chiatric facilities $n a 9udgesG finding that the
min$rs reuest is inf$rmed and $luntar!. (A00ellants Br. at 141 (citing
#.>. 't. 6. ;@7;47A(c)).) A00ellants a00les t$ $ranges c$m0aris$n fails t$
rec$gniCe h$,eer: that ,hereas residential 0s!chiatric treatment ma! enefitcertain 0atients: the #e, >erse! legislatures highl! 0lausile c$nclusi$n is
that %O'E is ineffectie and 0$tentiall! harmful. King: 7+7 F.3d at 3.
Case: 14-3495 Document: 003111795648 Page: 33 Date Filed: 11/17/2014
8/10/2019 14-3495 Garden State Equality Brief
34/44
7
F.
T/$ C-&,% A',ea0 Ha$ He' Ta% A""#1 D-e$ N-% V/-'a%e Te
F/,$% A*e(*e(% R/g% T- F,ee E7e,)/$e O+ Re'/g/-(.
Li=e A00ellants free s0eech claim: their free e&ercise claim alread! has
een re9ected ! this '$urt. 8hile A00ellants insist that A3371 is n$t neutral:
and nGeither is it generall! a00licale: (A00ellants Br. at ;5): this '$urts
$0ini$n in King re9ected the er! same arguments. "n 0articular: this '$urt held
that A3371 is neutral and generall! a00licale: and theref$re triggers $nl! rati$nal
asis reie,. King: 7+7 F.3d at ;3. *aing alread! c$ncluded that A3371
suries intermediate scrutin!: the '$urt ,ent $n t$ h$ld that it f$ll$,s ipso
facto that this la, is rati$nall! related t$ a legitimate g$ernment interest. !.
>ust as inKing: A00ellants free e&ercise claims thus fail here as ,ell.
II. THE DISTRICT COURT CORRECTLY HELD THAT A""#1 DOES
NOT VIOLATE APPELLANTS PARENTAL RIGHTS.
A00ellants >ac= and >ane /$e allege that A3371 infringes u0$n their
fundamental rights as 0arents ! 0reenting them fr$m $taining a 0articular
mental health treatment f$r their min$r child fr$m state4licensed thera0ists. 8hile
this '$urt in King did n$t directl! address a claim f$r that alleged i$lati$n: the
King$0ini$n necessaril! c$m0els the c$nclusi$n that the /istrict '$urt c$rrectl!
dismissed that claim as ,ell: ecause (1) A3371 regulates state4licensed
0r$fessi$nals rather than 0arents: and () 0arents rights t$ direct the u0ringing $f
Case: 14-3495 Document: 003111795648 Page: 34 Date Filed: 11/17/2014
8/10/2019 14-3495 Garden State Equality Brief
35/44
their children d$ n$t include the right t$ su9ect children t$ medical treatments that
the %tate reas$nal! has deemed harmful and ineffectie.
A.
A""#1 D-e$ N-% I(%e,+e,e W/% Pa,e(%C/' Re'a%/-($/3$.
As an initial matter: A00ellants argument misses the mar= ecause A3371
regulates the 0ractices $f state4licensed mental health 0r$fessi$nals: n$t 0arents:
and theref$re d$es n$t infringe u0$n >ac= and >ane /$es right t$ direct the
u0ringing $f their child. '$urts hae rec$gniCed the 0arental liert! interest
$nl! ,here the ehai$r $f the state act$r c$m0elled interference in the 0arent4
child relati$nshi0. Anspach ex rel. Anspach v. City of Phila., Dept. of Pub.
Health: 5-3 F.3d 5+: + (3d 'ir. --7). A c$nflict ,ith the 0arents liert! ,ill
n$t e lightl! f$und and e&ists $nl! if the states acti$n de0ried them $f their
right t$ ma=e decisi$ns c$ncerning their child: and n$t ,hen the acti$n merel!
c$m0licated the ma=ing $r im0lementati$n $f th$se decisi$ns. .%. ex rel. %nyer
v. Blue -ountain %ch. Dist.: +5- F.3d 15: 3343; (3d 'ir. -11). #$ such
c$nflict e&ists here.
A3371 a00lies e&clusiel! t$ a 0ers$n ,h$ is licensed t$ 0r$ide
0r$fessi$nal c$unseling: i.e.: t$ 0r$fessi$nals licensed ! the %tate. #.>. %TAT.
A##.? ;5@1455(a). "t d$es n$t regulate 0arents $r interfere ,ith their relati$nshi0s
,ith their children. arents remain free t$ c$mmunicate their alues t$ their
children: c$ntr$l their childrens u0ringing: 0r$ide them ,ith religi$us
Case: 14-3495 Document: 003111795648 Page: 35 Date Filed: 11/17/2014
8/10/2019 14-3495 Garden State Equality Brief
36/44
instructi$n: and share their eliefs regarding se&ual $rientati$n ,ith them. The
s$le effect $f A3371 is t$ regulate state4licensed 0r$fessi$nals. Theref$re: the
/istrict '$urt c$rrectl! c$ncluded that the statute d$es n$t urden A00ellants
0arental rights. (%eeA00. 3 (O0ini$n) (distinguishing this case fr$m situati$ns
in ,hich the state has 0$sitiel! inter9ected itself int$ 0arental decisi$n ma=ing $r
the famil! structure).)
B.
Pa,e(%a' R/g%$ A,e N-% A$-'&%e A( D- N-% I()'&e A R/g% T-
S&8e)% C/',e( T- Me/)a' T,ea%*e(%$ Dee*e Ha,*+&' O,
I(e++e)%/e B0 Te S%a%e.
A00ellants argument stretches the 0arental rights d$ctrine far e!$nd its
estalished $unds. 6ather than limiting a states ailit! t$ interfere ,ith 0arent4
child relati$nshi0s: A00ellants argument ,$uld im0$se an affirmative$ligati$n
$n the %tate t$ 0r$ide access t$ mental health treatmentsDeen th$se the %tate
has f$und t$ e harmful and ineffectieDmerel! ecause 0arents ,ish t$ $tain
th$se treatments f$r their children. #$ such c$nstituti$nal $ligati$n e&ists.
'$urts unif$rml! hae held that there is n$ c$nstituti$nall! 0r$tected right t$
a medical treatment the %tate reas$nal! has deemed ineffectie $r unsafe: either
$n $nes $,n ehalf $r $n ehalf $f $nes children. As this '$urt has n$ted: iGn
the asence $f e&tra$rdinar! circumstances: state restricti$ns $n a 0atients ch$ice
$f a 0articular treatment . . . hae een f$und t$ ,arrant $nl! rati$nal asis
reie,. %ammon v. &.. B. of -e. Exam/rs: ++ F.3d +3: +;5 (3d 'ir. 15).
Case: 14-3495 Document: 003111795648 Page: 36 Date Filed: 11/17/2014
8/10/2019 14-3495 Garden State Equality Brief
37/44
3-
Other c$urts similarl! hae u0held such restricti$ns in the c$nte&t $f medical
treatment. %ee &at/l Ass/n for the Avancement of Psychoanalysis v. Ca. B. of
Psychology, F.3d 1-;3: 1-5- (th 'ir. ---) (%Gustantie due 0r$cess
rights d$ n$t e&tend t$ the ch$ice $f t!0e $f treatment $r $f a 0articular health care
0r$ider.)I Abigail Alliancefor Better Access to Developmental Drugs v. von
Eschenbach: ;5 F.3d +5: 711 (/.'. 'ir. --7) (terminall! ill 0atients hae n$
fundamental right t$ access treatments ,h$se safet! has n$t !et een tested)I
-itchell v. Clayton: 5 F.d 77: 775 (7th 'ir. 13) (AG 0atient d$es n$t hae
a c$nstituti$nal right t$ $tain a 0articular t!0e $f treatment $r t$ $tain treatment
fr$m a 0articular 0r$ider if the g$ernment has reas$nal! 0r$hiited that t!0e $f
treatment $r 0r$ider.)I)utherfor v. #nite %tates: +1+ F.d ;55: ;57 (1-th 'ir.
1-) (terminall! ill cancer 0atients hae n$ fundamental right t$ $tain n$n4F/A4
a00r$ed drugs)Isee alsoDuncan v. #nite %tates: 5- F. %u00. 3: ;-4;1 (8./.
O=la. 1;) (0arent $f a child ,ith /$,ns %!ndr$me c$uld n$t $tain una00r$ed
drug)I 54la. Chapter of the Am. Aca. of Peiatrics v. $ogarty: 3++ F. %u00. d
1-5- (#./. O=la. --5) (0arents hae n$ fundamental right t$ $tain e&0erimental
asthma drug f$r their children).
As the /.'. 'ircuit has n$ted: nG$ circuit c$urt has acceded t$ an affirmatieaccess claim. Abigail Alliance: ;5 F.3d at 71- n..
Case: 14-3495 Document: 003111795648 Page: 37 Date Filed: 11/17/2014
8/10/2019 14-3495 Garden State Equality Brief
38/44
31
6e9ecting the argument that a 'alif$rnia la, similar t$ A3371 i$lated
0arents rights: the #inth 'ircuit c$ncluded that it ,$uld e $dd if 0arents had a
sustantie due 0r$cess right t$ ch$$se s0ecific treatments f$r childrenD
treatments that reas$nal! hae een deemed harmful ! the stateDut n$t f$r
themseles. Pic4up: 7;- F.3d at 13+. That c$nclusi$n is es0eciall! c$m0elling
gien the ,ell4settled 0rinci0le that the state has greater auth$rit! t$ legislate in the
interest $f 0r$tecting children. Princev. -assachusetts: 31
8/10/2019 14-3495 Garden State Equality Brief
39/44
3
health $r death. Prince:31 erse!s
stated interest in 0r$tecting min$r citiCens fr$m harmful 0r$fessi$nal 0ractices.
King: 7+7 F.3d at 3. ien this '$urts h$lding that #e, >erse! has the
auth$rit! t$ an %O'E as 0racticed $n min$rs ased $n the states determinati$n
Case: 14-3495 Document: 003111795648 Page: 39 Date Filed: 11/17/2014
8/10/2019 14-3495 Garden State Equality Brief
40/44
33
that the 0ractice is harmful: it strains reas$n t$ suggest that >ac= and >ane /$e
n$netheless hae a c$nstituti$nal right t$ reuire the state t$ 0ermit licensed mental
health 0r$iders t$ su9ect their min$r s$n t$ that 0ractice.
A00ellants strain t$ read Parham v. .).: ;; . %TAT. A##. ? ;5@145;() (listing
litan! $f 0$tential harms). The legislatie findings als$ relied u0$n the
c$nclusi$ns $f numer$us $ther 0r$fessi$nal $rganiCati$ns that %O'E 0uts0atients at ris= $f seri$us harms: lac=s a scientific asis: and 0r$ides n$dem$nstrale enefits.!. ? ;5@145;(c)4(m). $re$er: the legislature receied
testim$n! at legislatie hearings fr$m a numer $f indiiduals that descriedthe harms $f g$ing thr$ugh %O'E. (%ee A00. ;14;3 (E&hiit 1 t$ Ba!er
/eclarati$n: 8itness %li0s fr$m the #> Asseml! 8$men 'hildren'$mmittee *earing $n A3371 $n >une 1: -13).) This '$urt alread! has
f$und that this eidence is sustantial and that the #e, >erse! legislature ,as
entitled t$ rel! $n the em0irical 9udgments $f inde0endent 0r$fessi$nal$rganiCati$ns that 0$ssess s0ecialiCed =n$,ledge and e&0erience c$ncerning
the 0r$fessi$nal 0ractice under reie,: 0articularl! ,hen this c$mmunit! hass0$=en ,ith such urgenc! and s$lidarit! $n the su9ect. King: 7+7 F.3d at 3.
1- A00ellants als$ $erstate the sc$0e $f the 0arental right in Parham. The
%u0reme '$urt held that 0arents ma! c$mmit their children t$ mental h$s0itals,ith$ut an adersarial hearing: ut $nl! ecause the statute in uesti$n 0r$0erl!
0r$tected children ! reuiring the su0erintendent $f each regi$nal h$s0ital t$
Case: 14-3495 Document: 003111795648 Page: 40 Date Filed: 11/17/2014
8/10/2019 14-3495 Garden State Equality Brief
41/44
3;
regulati$n t$ 0r$tect min$rs fr$m mental health 0ractices that are ineffectie and
unsafe. Thus: it is ,ell ,ithin the rightful $undar! $f its 0$,er t$ 0r$tect
min$rs fr$m harmful 0$ssiilities . . . $f 0s!ch$l$gical $r 0h!sical in9ur!.
Prince: 31
8/10/2019 14-3495 Garden State Equality Brief
42/44
35
"n sum: A00ellants $ffer n$ reas$n f$r this '$urt t$ $erturn the
,ell4reas$ned decisi$n $f the /istrict '$urt in h$lding that A3371 d$es n$t i$late
>ac= and >ane /$es 0arental rights.
CONCLUSION
F$r all the f$reg$ing reas$ns: this '$urt sh$uld affirm the /istrict '$urts
$0ini$n in its entiret! and sustain the dismissal $f A00ellants '$m0laint.
/ated@ #$emer 17: -1; M"6MLA#/ ELL"% LL
Ns /aid %. FlugmanFran= *$l$Cuiec
/aid %. Flugman
%hireen A. Barda!Andre, '. Orr
+-1 Le&ingt$n Aenuee, K$r=: #e, K$r= 1--
Tele0h$ne@ (1) ;;+4;--
Facsimile@ (1) ;;+4;--
44 and 44
Andre, >. 8elC
+55 Fifteenth %treet: #.8.
8ashingt$n: /.'. ---5
Tele0h$ne@ (-) +374-15Facsimile@ (-) 745--
Case: 14-3495 Document: 003111795648 Page: 42 Date Filed: 11/17/2014
8/10/2019 14-3495 Garden State Equality Brief
43/44
3+
AT"O#AL 'E#TE6 FO6 LE%B"A# 6"*T%%hann$n . inter
'hrist$0her F. %t$llAm! '. 8helan
7- ar=et %treet: %uite 37-%an Francisc$: 'alif$rnia ;1-
Tele0h$ne@ (;15) 34+57Facsimile@ (;15) 34;;
L
8/10/2019 14-3495 Garden State Equality Brief
44/44
CERTIFICATION OF COUNSEL
": /aid %. Flugman: here! certif! that@
1. " am a memer $f the ar $f this c$urtI
. This rief c$m0lies ,ith the t!0e4$lume limitati$n $f Fed. 6
A00. . 3(a)(7)(B) ecause this rief c$ntains :--;,$rds: e&cluding the
0arts $f the rief e&em0ted ! Fed. 6. A00. . 3(a)(7)(B)(iii)I
3. This rief c$m0lies ,ith the t!0eface reuirements $f Fed. 6.
A00. . 3(a)(5) and t!0e st!le reuirements $f Fed. 6. A00. . 3(a)(+)
ecause this rief has een 0re0ared in a 0r$0$rti$nall! s0aced t!0eface
using icr$s$ft 8$rd in Times #e, 6$man (1; 0$int f$nt)I
;. The electr$nic ersi$n $f this rief is identical t$ the te&t
ersi$n in the 0a0er c$0ies filed ,ith the c$urt. This d$cument ,as scanned
using icr$s$ft F$refr$nt and that n$ iruses ,ere detected.
5. On this date: seen (7) hard c$0ies $f the Brief f$r A00ellee
arden %tate Eualit! ,ere sent t$ the 'ler=s Office. ursuant t$ L$cal
A00ellate 6ules 31.1(d) and 113.;(a): " caused the Brief f$r A00ellee
arden %tate Eualit! t$ e sered $n c$unsel f$r A00ellants ia the #$tice
$f /$c=et Actiit! generated ! the '$urts electr$nic filing s!stem (i.e.:
'NE'F).
/ated@ #$emer 17: -1; sN /aid %. Flugman
#e, K$r=: #e, K$r= '$unsel f$r A00ellee arden%tate Eualit!
Case: 14-3495 Document: 003111795648 Page: 44 Date Filed: 11/17/2014
Recommended