14-3495 garden state equality brief

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


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



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. ..........................................................-



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



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


6/44

i

King v. 3overnor of &e* ersey:7+7 F.3d 1+ (3d 'ir. -1;) ......................................................................... 0assim

-eyer v. &ebras4a:

+


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



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


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


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).



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



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



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



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



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.



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).



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



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



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).)



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.



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.



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).



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;-.



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.



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



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


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$re acting t$



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.



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



30/44


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


32/44


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.



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



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



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).



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..



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


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



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$s0ital t$



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


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--



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


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!


14-3495 garden state equality brief

Documents