9th Circuit Stays Order Pending Cert. Petition In Case Upholding California's "Change Therapy for Minors" Ban

As previously reported, last week the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals denied en banc review of a 3-judge panel's decision that upheld California Senate Bill 1172. The bill bans state-licensed mental health providers from engaging in sexual orientation change efforts with patients under 18.  Now in Pickup v. Brown, (9th Cir., Feb. 3, 2014), the 9th Circuit has agreed to stay its mandate in the case while appellants file a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the stay.

9th Circuit, With Dissents, Denies En Banc Review In Reparative Therapy Ban Challenge

As previously reported, last August in Pickup v. Brown, (9th Cir., Aug. 29, 2013), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality of California Senate Bill 1172 that bans state-licensed mental health providers from engaging in sexual orientation change efforts with patients under 18.  Yesterday in Pickup v. Brown, (9th Cir., Jan. 29, 2014),) the panel reaffirmed its holding in an amended opinion, and the full court (with 3 dissents) denied en banc review. The amended opinion-- apparently in response to dissenters' criticisms-- adds the discussion at pp. 39-41 distinguishing this case from the U.S. Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project.

In the dissent from yesterday' denial of review by the 9th Circuit, Judge O'Scannlain, joined by Judges Bea and Ikuta, said:

The State ... here, has prohibited licensed professionals from saying certain words to their clients. By labeling such speech as “conduct,” the panel’s opinion has entirely exempted such regulation from the First Amendment. In so doing, the panel contravenes recent Supreme Court precedent, ignores established free speech doctrine, misreads our cases, and thus insulates from First Amendment scrutiny California’s prohibition—in the guise of a professional regulation—of politically unpopular expression.

Volokh Conspiracy also discusses yesterday's action by the 9th Circuit.

Court Rejects Challenges To New Jersey Ban On Conversion Therapy for Minors

In King v. Christie, (D NJ, Nov. 8, 2013), a New Jersey federal district court dismissed a challenge to the state's ban on sexual-orientation change therapy for minors.  It held that psychotherapy carried out through talk therapy is not speech under the 1st Amendment.  Instead it is conduct.  In so holding, the court in part pointed to the 9th Circuit's recent decision upholding a similar California statute. The court went on to reject claims that the New Jersey statute is overbroad and vague.  Finally the court rejected the claim that the New Jersey statute violates the Free Exercise clause by preventing mental health providers from exercising their sincerely held religious beliefs that changing same-sex attraction or behavior is possible. The court concluded that the statute is a neutral law of general applicability. The Newark Star Ledger reports on the decision.