Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 66

*FOR PUBLICATION

!"#$%& ($)$%( &#($*#+$ +,!*$


-,* $.% &#($*#+$ ,- "%/ 0%*(%1

TIe HonorubIe redu . WoIIson, U.S.D.J.

___________________________________
:
TARA KNG, ED.D., et cl., CIvII AcLIon No. 1-o8
:

PIuInLIIIs, :
,2#"#,"
:
vs.
:

:
CHRISTOPHER CHRISTIE,
Governor oI New Jersey, et cl., :

DeIendunLs. :

_______________________________________ :

!""#$%$&'#()

!"#$%&' )"* +',-$.-))% !"#$%&' )"* +*"/"%&0 1$.&*2&$"*

!"#"$%&'( *+ ,$%-$&(. /(0+ 123%"4 5-6"%. /(0+
7-4 899&:" '9 !"#"$%&'( *+ ,$%-$&(. 77; <=>:? @-=%-$A. 77B
CDEDF G&H"% G'-3 FIJ G&H"%H&"4 B=-K-
L-&% 7-42. MN DOFCD P%"2$'2. MN DJQCC


!"#$%&' )"* 3&)&$0,$.%

,>(-2 R-%&" ,:'$$. /(0+
/%&: ,+ B-($"%2-:?. /(0+
G'S"%$ P+ 7'>T6. /(0+
899&:" '9 $A" MN 1$$'%2"6 <"2"%-=
G+N+ U>TA"( N>($&:" ;'#V="W
B' 5'W CCI
P%"2$'2. MN DJQIX
Case 3:l3-cv-05038-FLW-LHG Document 57 Filed ll/08/l3 Page l of 66 PagelD: l46l
!

On AugusL 1q, zo1, New Jersey Governor CIrIsLopIer J. CIrIsLIe
sIgned InLo Iuw AssembIy BIII Number A3371 (A3371) (codIIIed uL
N.J.S.A. q:1-q, -),
1
wIIcI proIIbILs New Jersey sLuLe IIcensed
prucLILIoners, wIo provIde proIessIonuI counseIIng servIces, Irom LreuLIng
mInors usIng meLIods oI SexuuI OrIenLuLIon Change Efforts (SOCE),
more commonIy known as gay conversion LIerupy; A;1 becume
eIIecLIve on LIe sume duLe. TIe BIII Is LIe second pIece oI IegIsIuLIon oI ILs
kInd In LIe nuLIon, wILI CuIIIornIu IuvIng been LIe IIrsL sLuLe Lo
successIuIIy enucL sucI u Iuw.
z
n pussIng LIIs sLuLuLe, LIe New Jersey
egIsIuLure deLermIned, inter clic, LIuL LIIs Lype oI LreuLmenL subjecLs
mInors Lo poLenLIuIIy IurmIuI consequences. CIuIIengers Lo LIe
consLILuLIonuIILy oI A;1 ure PIuInLIIIs, Turu KIng Ed.D. und RonuId
Newmun, PI.D., wIo ure IndIvIduuI IIcensed LIerupIsLs, us weII us LIe
NuLIonuI AssocIuLIon Ior ReseurcI und TIerupy oI HomosexuuIILy
(NARTH) and LIe AmerIcun AssocIuLIon oI CIrIsLIun CounseIors
(AACC) (collectively, Plaintiffs), wIose members IncIude vurIous

#
AL LIe LIme PIuInLIIIs brougIL LIIs suIL, AssembIy BIII A;1 Iud noL
been codIIIed us u sLuLuLe, und LIus, LIe purLIes reIer In LIeIr pupers Lo LIe
now-codIIIed sLuLuLe us A;1. n LIIs OpInIon, LIe CourL wIII
InLercIungeubIy use A;1 or N.J.S.A. q:1-q. -.

z
CIuIIengers oI LIe CuIIIornIu sLuLuLe were unsuccessIuI In
overLurnIng LIe Iuw. TIe NInLI CIrcuIL CourL oI AppeuIs, In Piclup t.
roun, ;z8 .d 1oqz (qLI Cir. 2013), recently held that Californias
sLuLuLe bunnIng IIcensed proIessIonuIs Irom prucLIcIng SOCE Is
consLILuLIonuI.

Case 3:l3-cv-05038-FLW-LHG Document 57 Filed ll/08/l3 Page 2 of 66 PagelD: l462
$

IIcensed proIessIonuIs wIo prucLIce or wIsI Lo enguge In SOCE.

TIe
numed deIendunLs ure Governor CIrIsLIe, ErIc T. KuneIsky, DIrecLor oI LIe
New Jersey Dept of Law and Public Safety, Milagros Collazo, Executive
DIrecLor oI LIe New Jersey Bourd oI MurrIuge und umIIy TIerupy
ExumIners, J. MIcIueI WuIker, ExecuLIve DIrecLor oI LIe New Jersey Bourd
oI PsycIoIogIcuI ExumIners, und PuuI Jordun, PresIdenL oI LIe New Jersey
State Board of Medical Examiners (collectively, Defendants or LIe
State). PIuInLIIIs uIso brIng consLILuLIonuI cIuIms on beIuII oI LIe
IIcensed proIessIonuIs minor clients and the clients parents.
q
PresenLIy
beIore LIe CourL ure cross moLIons Ior summury judgmenL.

DurIng LIe
pendency oI LIe brIeIIng, Proposed nLervenor, Gurden SLuLe EquuIILy
(Garden State), moved Lo InLervene us u deIendunL In LIIs cuse, or In LIe
uILernuLIve, IL sougIL cmicus curice sLuLus.
On LIese moLIons, LIe purLIes ruIse u IosL oI IeguI Issues, LIe mosL
sIgnIIIcunL oI wIIcI Iocuses on wIeLIer, by proIIbILIng LIe prucLIce oI
SOCE, LIe SLuLe Ius ImpermIssIbIy InIrInged upon Plaintiffs IrsL
AmendmenL rIgILs -- Ireedom oI speecI und Iree reIIgIous expressIon.

Y
TIere Is no dIspuLe LIuL NARTH und AACC Iuve ussocIuLIonuI
sLundIng Lo brIng cIuIms on beIuII oI LIeIr members.

F
WILIIn LIe IusL week, u mInor cIIenL und IIs purenLs, represenLed by
LIe sume counseI us represenLs PIuInLIIIs Iere, IIIed u sImIIur IuwsuIL
uguInsL DeIendunLs cIuIIengIng LIe consLILuLIonuIILy oI A;1. TIIs muLLer
uIso Is ussIgned Lo me. See Doe t. Christie, et cl., CIv. No. 1-66zq(W).

X
nILIuIIy, PIuInLIIIs sougIL Lo preIImInurIIy enjoIn DeIendunLs Irom
enIorcIng A;1; Iowever, durIng LIe pendency oI LIuL moLIon, LIe purLIes
ugreed Lo converL LIe preIImInury InjuncLIon moLIon InLo one Ior summury
judgmenL, wILI DeIendunLs cross movIng Ior summury judgmenL.

Case 3:l3-cv-05038-FLW-LHG Document 57 Filed ll/08/l3 Page 3 of 66 PagelD: l463
%

Becuuse LIe CourL IInds LIuL A;1 resLrIcLs neILIer speecI nor reIIgIous
expressIon, ruLIonuI busIs revIew uppIIes. IurLIer IInd LIuL A;1 pusses
consLILuLIonuI musLer under LIuL sLundurd. AccordIngIy, Defendants cross
moLIon Ior summury judgmenL Is 3*)"$%& In ILs enLIreLy; und
Plaintiffs motion for summury judgmenL Is &%"#%&. Garden States
moLIon Lo InLervene Is 3*)"$%&.
4)+53*,!"&
AssembIy BIII A;1 precIudes persons IIcensed Lo prucLIce In
cerLuIn counseIIng proIessIons Irom engugIng in the practice of seeking to
change a [minors] sexual orientation. 2(b). The statute has two
secLIons; SecLIon 1 provIdes IegIsIuLIve IIndIngs und decIuruLIons, wIIIe
SecLIon z deIInes SOCE und esLubIIsIes LIe scope oI LIe IegIsIuLIve
proIIbILIon on sucI conducL.
!"#$%&' ) *+,-,!,., /01)20/3
n SecLIon 1 oI LIe SLuLuLe, LIe egIsIuLure decIured LIuL |b|eIng
IesbIun, guy, or bIsexuuI Is noL u dIseuse, dIsorder, IIIness, deIIcIency, or
sIorLcomIng. TIe mujor proIessIonuI ussocIuLIons oI menLuI IeuILI
prucLILIoners und reseurcIers In LIe UnILed SLuLes Iuve recognIzed LIIs IucL
for nearly 40 years. 1(a). The Legislature then went on to state that
[m]inors who experience family rejection based on their sexual
orIenLuLIon Iuce especIuIIy serIous health risks, and that [s]ucI dIrecLed
eIIorLs |uL cIungIng sexuuI orIenLuLIon| ure uguInsL IundumenLuI prIncIpIes
oI psycIounuIyLIc LreuLmenL und oILen resuIL In subsLunLIuI psycIoIogIcuI
puIn by reInIorcIng damaging internalized attitudes. 1(m), (j)(z).
Case 3:l3-cv-05038-FLW-LHG Document 57 Filed ll/08/l3 Page 4 of 66 PagelD: l464
&

n supporL oI ILs deLermInuLIon, LIe egIsIuLure cILed muny oI LIe
posILIon sLuLemenLs und resoIuLIons oI proIessIonuI ussocIuLIons,
IncIudIng, inter clic, LIe AmerIcun PsycIIuLrIc AssocIuLIon, LIe AmerIcun
Acudemy oI PedIuLrIcs und LIe AmerIcun Acudemy oI CIIId und AdoIescenL
PsycIIuLry. 1 (c)-(m). AccordIng Lo LIe egIsIuLure, eucI oI LIese
proIessIonuI ussocIuLIons Ius concIuded LIuL LIere Is IILLIe or no evIdence
oI LIe eIIIcucy oI SOCE, und LIuL SOCE Ius LIe poLenLIuI Ior Iurm, sucI us
cuusIng LIose LreuLed Lo experIence depressIon, guIIL, unxIeLy und LIougILs
oI suIcIde. Id. SpecIIIcuIIy, reIyIng on LIe AmerIcun PsycIoIogIcuI
Associations report on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses Lo SexuuI
Orientation, the Legislature found that sexual orientation change efforts
cun pose crILIcuI IeuILI rIsks Lo IesbIun, guy, und bIsexuuI peopIe, IncIudIng
conIusIon, depressIon, guIIL, IeIpIessness, IopeIessness, sIume, socIuI
wILIdruwuI, suIcIduIILy, subsLunce ubuse, sLress, dIsuppoInLmenL, seII-
bIume, decreused seII-esLeem und uuLIenLIcILy Lo oLIers, . . . |und| u IeeIIng
of being dehumanized. 1(b).
SImIIurIy, und purLIcuIurIy reIevunL Lo mInors, cILIng un AmerIcun
Acudemy oI PedIuLrIcs journuI urLIcIe, LIe egIsIuLure concIuded LIuL
[t]herapy directed at specifically changing sexual orientation is
conLruIndIcuLed, sInce IL cun provoke guIIL und unxIeLy wIIIe IuvIng IILLIe
or no poLenLIuI Ior ucIIevIng cIunges in orientation. 1(f). TIe
egIsIuLure uIso Iooked Lo un AmerIcun Acudemy oI CIIId und AdoIescenL
PsycIIuLry journuI urLIcIe, wIIcI sLuLes LIuL
Case 3:l3-cv-05038-FLW-LHG Document 57 Filed ll/08/l3 Page 5 of 66 PagelD: l465
'

|c|IInIcIuns sIouId be uwure LIuL LIere Is no evIdence LIuL
sexuuI orIenLuLIon cun be uILered LIrougI LIerupy, und LIuL
uLLempLs Lo do so muy be IurmIuI . . . . ndeed, LIere Is no
medIcuIIy vuIId busIs Ior uLLempLIng Lo prevenL
IomosexuuIILy, wIIcI Is noL un IIIness. On LIe conLrury, sucI
eIIorLs muy encouruge IumIIy rejecLIon und undermIne seII-
esLeem, connecLedness und curIng, ImporLunL proLecLIve
IucLors uguInsL suIcIduI IdeuLIon und uLLempLs. GIven LIuL
LIere Is no evIdence LIuL eIIorLs Lo uILer sexuuI orIenLuLIon
ure eIIecLIve, beneIIcIuI or necessury, und LIe possIbIIILy LIuL
LIey curry LIe rIsk oI sIgnIIIcunL Iurm, sucI InLervenLIons ure
conLruIndIcuLed.

1(k).

Indeed, based on these professional associations findings and other
evIdence beIore LIe egIsIuLure, LIe SLuLe concIuded that it has a
compeIIIng InLeresL In proLecLIng LIe pIysIcuI und psycIoIogIcuI weII-beIng
oI mInors, IncIudIng guys, bIsexuuI, und Lrunsgender youLI, und In
proLecLIng ILs mInors uguInsL exposure Lo serIous Iurms cuused by sexuuI
orientation change efforts. 1(n).
!"#$%&' 4 *+,-,!,., /01)2003
AssembIy BIII A3371s prohibition on the practice of SOCE with a
person under 18 years of age applies to [a] person who is licensed to
provIde proIessIonuI counseIIng under TILIe q oI LIe RevIsed SLuLuLes,
IncIudIng, buL noL IImILed Lo, u psycIIuLrIsL, IIcensed prucLIcIng
psycIoIogIsL, cerLIIIed socIuI worker, IIcensed cIInIcuI socIuI worker,
IIcensed socIuI worker, IIcensed murrIuge und IumIIy LIerupIsL, cerLIIIed
psycIounuIysL, or u person wIo perIorms counseIIng us purL oI LIe
Case 3:l3-cv-05038-FLW-LHG Document 57 Filed ll/08/l3 Page 6 of 66 PagelD: l466
(

person's professional training for any of these professions. 2(a).
6

urLIer, LIe egIsIuLure defines SOCE as the practice of seeking to change
a persons sexual orientation, including, but not limited to, efforts to
cIunge beIuvIors, gender IdenLILy, or gender expressIons, or Lo reduce or
eIImInuLe sexuuI or romunLIc uLLrucLIons or IeeIIngs Lowurd u person oI LIe
same gender . . . . 2(b).
However, LIe sLuLuLe mukes cIeur LIuL LIe proIIbILIon does noL
IncIude counseIIng Ior u person seekIng Lo LrunsILIon Irom one gender Lo
unoLIer, or counseIIng LIuL: (1) provIdes uccepLunce, supporL, und
understanding of a person or facilitates a persons coping, social support,
und IdenLILy expIoruLIon und deveIopmenL, IncIudIng sexuuI orIenLuLIon-
neuLruI InLervenLIons Lo prevenL or uddress unIuwIuI or unsuIe sexuuI
prucLices; and (2) any other type of counseling that does not seek to
cIunge sexuuI orIenLuLIon. Id. uL (1), (z).
Plaintiffs Challenge to A3371
PIuInLIIIs cIuIIenge LIe consLILuLIonuIILy oI A;1 becuuse LIey
uIIege LIe sLuLuLe vIoIuLes LIeIr sLuLe und IederuI IrsL AmendmenL rIgILs,
numeIy, Ireedom oI speecI und Iree exercIse oI reIIgIon. n uddILIon,
PIuInLIIIs, on beIuII oI mInor cIIenLs und LIeIr purenLs, usserL LIuL A;1
InLerIeres wILI LIe mInor cIIenLs right to self-deLermInuLIon und LIe
purents fundamental right to direct the upbringing of their cIIIdren. As Lo
Iree speecI, PIuInLIIIs muInLuIn LIuL A;1 proIIbILs IIcensed proIessIonuIs

'
L Is ImporLunL Lo noLe LIuL A;1 does noL proIIbIL non-IIcensed
counseIors or LIerupIsLs, IncIudIng non-IIcensed reIIgIous counseIors, Irom
prucLIcIng SOCE.
Case 3:l3-cv-05038-FLW-LHG Document 57 Filed ll/08/l3 Page 7 of 66 PagelD: l467
)

Irom engugIng In, or reIerrIng Lo u IIcensed proIessIonuI wIo enguges In,
counseIIng wILI u mInor regurdIng IIsJIer unwanted same-sex sexuuI
uLLrucLIons, pIucIng un unconsLILuLIonuI resLruInL on LIe conLenL oI
PIuInLIIIs messuge to their clients. Plaintiffs reason that A3371 authorizes
onIy one vIewpoInL on SOCE und unwunLed sume-sex sexuuI uLLrucLIons,
beIuvIors, und IdenLILy by IorcIng . . . PIuInLIIIs . . . Lo presenL onIy one
vIewpoInL on LIe oLIerwIse permIssIbIe subjecL muLLer oI sume-sex
attractions . . . . Compl., 186.
Plaintiffs further complain that A3371 infringes on their sincerely
IeId reIIgIous beIIeIs Lo provIde spIrILuuI counseI und ussIsLunce Lo LIeIr
clients who seek such counsel in order to honor their clients right to self-
deLermInuLIon und Lo IreeIy exercIse LIeIr own sIncereIy IeId reIIgIous
beIIeIs Lo counseI on LIe subjecL muLLer oI sume-sex attractions . . . .
CompI., $ z. By doIng so, PIuInLIIIs uIIege LIat A3371 impermissibly
burden|s| Plaintiffs and their clients sincerely held religious beliefs and
compeIs LIem Lo boLI cIunge LIose reIIgIous beIIeIs und Lo ucL In
contradiction to them. Id. uL $ z;. TIIs Lype oI resLrIcLIon, PIuInLIIIs
usserL, vIoIuLes LIeIr sLuLe und IederuI consLILuLIonuI rIgILs Lo LIe Iree
exercIse oI reIIgIon. InuIIy, PIuInLIIIs usserL LIuL A;1 vIoIuLes LIe
parents fundamental rights to dIrecL LIe upbrIngIng und educuLIon oI
LIeIr cIIIdren uccordIng Lo LIeIr sIncereIy IeId reIIgIous beIIeIs, Id., $
z6o, becuuse the statute prevents the parents . . . from seeking mental
health counseling for their minor childrens unwanted same-sex
uttractions . . . . Id. uL $ z61.
Case 3:l3-cv-05038-FLW-LHG Document 57 Filed ll/08/l3 Page 8 of 66 PagelD: l468
*

SIorLIy uILer PIuInLIIIs IIIed suIL, Gurden SLuLe sougIL permIssIve
InLervenLIon Lo deIend LIe consLILuLIonuIILy oI A;1. ounded In zooq,
Gurden SLuLe Is u New Jersey cIvII rIgILs orgunIzuLIon, prImurIIy
udvocuLIng Ior lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) equality
wILIIn LIe sLuLe. L supporLs und IobbIes Ior IegIsIuLIon, sucI us A;1,
LIuL proIIbILs, inter clic, dIscrImInuLIon on LIe busIs oI sexuuI orIenLuLIon.
Gurden SLuLe uIms Lo proLecL LIe InLeresLs oI GBT cILIzens In New Jersey,
IncIudIng youLI. TIIs orgunIzuLIon Ius over 1z,ooo members, IncIudIng
GBT mInors und LIeIr purenLs, some oI wIom, uccordIng Lo Gurden
SLuLe, mIgIL be subjecL Lo SOCE LreuLmenL uL LIe InsIsLence oI u purenL or
guurdIun, or bused on LIe cIoIce oI u IIcensed menLuI IeuILI proIessIonuI.
56&#"7869: ;%<$&6=
PIuInLIIIs IIIed LIeIr sIx-counL CompIuInL on AugusL zz, zo1.
nILIuIIy, PIuInLIIIs moved Lo LemporurIIy resLruIn DeIendunLs Irom
enIorcIng A;1. However, uILer u LeIepIone conIerence, und wILI LIe
consenL oI LIe purLIes, LIe CourL converLed Plaintiffs motion for u
preIImInury InjuncLIon Lo u summury judgmenL moLIon. TIereuILer,
DeIendunLs cross-moved Ior summury judgmenL. AILer LIe IIIIng oI
Plaintiffs InILIuI moLIon, Gurden SLuLe moved Lo InLervene us u deIendunL
In LIIs muLLer. By TexL Order duLed SepLember 16, zo1, LIe CourL grunLed
Garden States request, and indicated in that Order that the reasoning for
the Courts decIsIon wouId be sLuLed more IuIIy In u wrILLen opInIon Lo
IoIIow.
Case 3:l3-cv-05038-FLW-LHG Document 57 Filed ll/08/l3 Page 9 of 66 PagelD: l469
#+

On OcLober 1, zo1, LIe CourL IeId oruI urgumenL on LIese
summury judgmenL moLIons, wIereIn counseI Ior PIuInLIIIs,
;
DeIendunLs
und LIe nLervenor purLIcIpuLed. NoLubIy, durIng LIe IeurIng, PIuInLIIIs
udvunced un uddILIonuI noveI urgumenL us Lo wIy Gurden SLuLe sIouId noL
be grunLed InLervenor sLuLus: Gurden SLuLe musL Iuve ArLIcIe sLundIng
Lo InLervene uL LIe dIsLrIcL courL IeveI. TIe CourL reserved ILs decIsIon on
LIuL quesLIon. n uddILIon, In response to the parties various evidentiary
objecLIons Lo cerLuIn experL opInIonsJcerLIIIcuLIons, LIe CourL IndIcuLed
LIuL uII objecLIons wIII be Luken under udvIsemenL, und Lo LIe exLenL LIe
CourL reIIes on uny cerLIIIcuLIons, LIe CourL wIII ruIe on LIe reIevunL
objecLIons uccordIngIy In LIIs OpInIon. See Hearing Transcript (Tr.),
T8:1z Tq:11.
&#(+!((#,"
#6 (789:8;: <= *>?@>A
A movIng purLy Is enLILIed Lo judgmenL us u muLLer oI Iuw wIere
LIere Is no genuIne Issue us Lo uny muLerIuI IucL. See ed. R. CIv.
6(c); rools t. Kler, zoq .d 1oz, 1o n. (d CIr. zooo) (citin ed. R.
CIv. 6(c); Celotex Corp. t. Cctrett, q;; U.S. 1;, z (1q86)); Drson, Inc.
t. Mircmcx Iilm Corp., ;q .d 18, 166 (d CIr. 1qq6). TIe burden oI
demonsLruLIng LIe ubsence oI u genuIne Issue oI muLerIuI IucL IuIIs on LIe
movIng purLy. See Tclor t. Phoenixtille Sch. Dist., 18q .d zq6, o (d

(
DurIng u LeIeconIerence, counseI Ior PIuInLIIIs IndIcuLed LIuL LIey
were objecting to Garden States motion to intervene; however, counsel did
noL objecL Lo Gurden States alternative request to enter the litigation as
cmicus.
Case 3:l3-cv-05038-FLW-LHG Document 57 Filed ll/08/l3 Page l0 of 66 PagelD: l470
##

CIr. 1qqq) (cILuLIons omILLed). Once LIe movIng purLy Ius suLIsIIed LIIs
InILIuI burden, LIe opposing party must identify specific facts which
demonstrate that there exists a genuine issue for trial. Drson, ;q .d uL
166.
NoL every Issue oI IucL wIII be suIIIcIenL Lo deIeuL u moLIon Ior
summary judgment; issues of fact are genuine if the evidence Is sucI LIuL
u reusonubIe jury couId reLurn u verdIcL Ior LIe nonmovIng
party. Anderson t. Libert Lobb, Inc., q;; U.S. zqz, zq8 (1q86).
urLIer, LIe nonmovIng purLy cunnoL resL upon mere uIIeguLIons; Ie musL
presenL ucLuuI evIdence LIuL creuLes u genuIne Issue oI muLerIuI
IucL. See ed. R. CIv. 6(c); Anderson, q;; U.S. uL zqq (citin Iirst Nct'l
cnl t. Cities Sert. Co., q1 U.S. z, zqo (1q68)). n conducLIng u revIew
oI LIe IucLs, LIe non-movIng purLy Is enLILIed Lo uII reusonubIe InIerences
und LIe record Is consLrued In LIe IIgIL mosL IuvorubIe Lo LIuL
purLy. See Pollocl t. Am. Tel. & Tel. Lon Lines, ;qq .zd 86o, 86q (d
CIr. 1q86). AccordIngIy, IL Is noL LIe courL's roIe Lo muke IIndIngs oI IucL,
buL Lo unuIyze LIe IucLs presenLed und deLermIne II u reusonubIe jury couId
reLurn u verdIcL Ior LIe nonmovIng purLy. See rools, zoq .d uL 1o n.
(citin Anderson, q;; U.S. uL zqq); i Apple MW t. MW oj N. Am.,
Inc., q;q .zd 18, 16 (d CIr. 1qqz).
##6 B<7@<9 7< #97>;?>9> CD 38;:>9 (787>
)6 (789:@9E 8F 89 #97>;?>9<;
AccordIng Lo PIuInLIIIs, In LIeIr suppIemenLuI brIeIIng, Gurden SLuLe
musL IndependenLIy suLIsIy ArLIcIe sLundIng requIremenLs beIore IL cun
Case 3:l3-cv-05038-FLW-LHG Document 57 Filed ll/08/l3 Page ll of 66 PagelD: l47l
#!

be grunLed Ieuve Lo InLervene under ed. R. CIv. P. zq(b). GeneruIIy, Lo
demonsLruLe LIe "cuse or conLroversy" sLundIng requIremenL under ArLIcIe
, z oI LIe UnILed SLuLes ConsLILuLIon, u pIuInLIII musL esLubIIsI LIuL IL
Ius suIIered u cognIzubIe Injury LIuL Is cuusuIIy reIuLed Lo LIe uIIeged
conducL oI LIe deIendunL und Is redressubIe by judIcIuI ucLIon. Iriends oj
the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., z8 U.S. 16;, 18o-81
(zooo); The Pitt Neus t. Iisher, z1 .d q, q (d CIr. zooo). Here,
PIuInLIIIs urgue LIuL Gurden SLuLe, u proposed InLervenIng deIendunL, musL
also satisfy Article IIIs standing mandate.
To begin the analysis, I start with the Third Circuits
ucknowIedgemenL In Am. Auto. Ins. Co. t. Murrc, 68 .d 11 (d CIr.
zo11), that neither the Third Circuit nor the Supreme Court has
deLermIned wIeLIer u poLenLIuI InLervenor musL even Iuve ArLIcIe
sLundIng Lo purLIcIpuLe In dIsLrIcL courL proceedIngs. Id. uL 18 n.q (cILIng
Dicmond t. Chcrles, q;6 U.S. q, 68-6q (1q86)).
8
WIIIe LIIs cIrcuIL Ius
noL unswered LIe sLundIng quesLIon In LIe conLexL oI InLervenLIon, Murrc
recognIzed LIuL oLIer cIrcuIL courLs ure spIIL on LIIs Issue. Compcre Ruiz

J
SuggesLIng LIuL LIe TIIrd CIrcuIL requIres u proposed InLervenor Lo
suLIsIy sLundIng, PIuInLIIIs reIy on Frempong v. Natl City Bank of In., qz
Fed. Appx. 167, 172 (3d Cir. 2011). Plaintiffs reliance is inapt. Irempon
deuIL wILI u pIuInLIII Iusbund -- noL un InLervenor -- wIo brougIL 1q8
claims in connection with defendant banks foreclosure of his wifes
properLy. TIe courL Iound LIuL pIuInLIII dId noL Iuve sLundIng Lo brIng
claims on his wifes behalf because he did not have any interest in the
dIspuLed properLy. n LIuL conLexL, LIe Issue oI wIeLIer u proposed
InLervenor musL Iuve IndependenL sLundIng under ArLIcIe wus noL
uddressed, IeL uIone resoIved LIe quesLIon oI InLevenor sLuLus wus noL un
Issue.

Case 3:l3-cv-05038-FLW-LHG Document 57 Filed ll/08/l3 Page l2 of 66 PagelD: l472
#$

t. Estelle, 161 .d 81q, 8o (LI CIr. 1qq8) (IoIdIng LIuL ArLIcIe
sLundIng Is noL u prerequIsILe Lo InLervenLIon); Cit oj Colo. Sprins t.
Climcx Molbdenum Co., 8; .d 1o;1, 1o;q (LI CIr. zooq) (sume);
Associcted uilders & Contrcctors t. Perr, 16 .d 688, 6qo (6LI CIr.
1qqq) (sume); Yniuez t. Arizonc, qq .zd ;z;, ;1 (qLI CIr. 1qq1)
(sume); Scebrush Rebellion, Inc., t. Wctt, ;1 .zd z, z; (qLI CIr.
1q8) (sume); Chiles t. Thornburh, 86 .zd 11q;, 1z1 (11LI CIr. 1q8q)
(sume); und United Stctes Postcl Sert. t. renncn, ;q .zd 188, 1qo (zd
CIr. 1q;8) (sume); uith Mcusolj t. cbbitt, 8 .d 1zq, 1oo (8LI CIr.
1qq6) (IoIdIng LIuL ArLIcIe sLundIng Is necessury Ior InLervenLIon);
United Stctes t. .p Acres oj Lcnd, ;q .zd 8, 8q (;LI CIr. 1q8)
(concIudIng LIuL InLervenLIon under RuIe zq requIres InLeresL greuLer LIun
LIuL oI sLundIng); und Rio Grcnde Pipeline Co. t. IERC, :;8 I.d , 8
(D.D.C. 1qqq) (an InLervenor musL Iuve sLundIng Lo purLIcIpuLe us un
InLervenor ruLIer LIun onIy us un umIcus curIue.).
q

HuvIng revIewed LIe conIIIcLIng uuLIorILIes cILed ubove, IInd LIuL
bused on LIe cIrcumsLunces oI LIIs cuse, Gurden SLuLe need noL suLIsIy
sLundIng requIremenLs In order Lo InLervene In LIese proceedIngs.
1o
sLurL

Z
L beurs noLIng LIuL LIe recenL Supreme CourL decIsIon In
Hollinuorth t. Perr, 1 S.CL. z6z, z661 (zo1), dId noL dIrecLIy
uddress LIe Issue oI InLervenor sLundIng In generuI. nsLeud, In LIuL cuse,
LIe CourL deuIL wILI u nurrower Issue: LIe CourL Iound LIuL sLundIng wus
IuckIng wIen un InLervenor sougIL Lo uppeuI LIe judgmenL oI LIe dIsLrIcL
courL uILer LIe unsuccessIuI deIendunL governmenL Iud decIded noL Lo
pursue LIe IuwsuIL.

1o
To LIe cIeur, un InLervenor, by rIgIL or permIssIon, normuIIy Ius LIe
rIgIL Lo uppeuI un udverse IInuI judgmenL by u LrIuI courL, jusL us uny oLIer
Case 3:l3-cv-05038-FLW-LHG Document 57 Filed ll/08/l3 Page l3 of 66 PagelD: l473
#%

wILI LIe mInorILy views reasoning. or exumpIe, LIe EIgILI CIrcuIL, In
Mcusolj, Lukes u rIgId upproucI Lo InLervenLIon. TIe courL LIere IeId LIuL
un InLervenor, regurdIess oI RuIe zq requIremenLs, musL Iuve sLundIng
because [a]n Article III case or controversy is one wIere uII purLIes Iuve
sLundIng, und u wouId-be InLervenor, becuuse Ie seeks Lo purLIcIpuLe us u
party, must have standing as well. Mcusolj, 8 .d uL 1oo. n LIuL
courts view, any intervenor LIuL does noL Iuve IndependenL sLundIng,
destroys an ArticIe cuse or conLroversy, regurdIess wIeLIer LIe
orIgInuI purLIes Iuve sLundIng Lo brIng suIL. Id.
On LIe oLIer sIde oI the coin, the majority view does noL Impose
IndependenL sLundIng requIremenLs on un InLervenor uL LIe dIsLrIcL courL
IeveI. |O|n muny occusIons LIe Supreme CourL Ius noLed LIuL un
InLervenor muy noL Iuve sLundIng, buL Ius noL specIIIcuIIy resoIved LIuL
Issue, so Iong us unoLIer purLy Lo LIe IILIguLIon Ius suIIIcIenL sLundIng Lo
usserL LIe cIuIm uL Issue.'" Scn 1ucn Count, Utch t. United Stctes, o
.d 116, 11;1-;z (1oLI CIr. zoo;) (en bcnc) (quoLIng puneI decIsIon In
Scn 1ucn Count, Utch t. United Stctes, qzo .d 11q;, 1zo (1oLI CIr.
zoo) (cILIng McConnell t. Ied. Election Comm'n, qo U.S. q, z
(zoo)). TIese cuses reuson LIuL ArLIcIe requIres onIy LIuL jusLIcIubIe
cases and controversies may be maintained in a federuI courL, see

purLy. Strinjellou t. Concerned Neihbors in Action, q8o U.S. ;o, ;-
;6 (1q8;). However, us uny oLIer purLy, un InLervenor seekIng Lo uppeuI on
ILs own, musL Iuve sLundIng under ArLIcIe oI LIe ConsLILuLIon Lo Iuve
LIe courL decIde LIe merILs oI LIe dIspuLe. Dicmond, q;6 U.S. uL 68. TIe
sLundIng requIremenL LIereIore muy bur un uppeuI by un InLervenor wIo
neverLIeIess purLIcIpuLed In LIe IILIguLIon beIore LIe dIsLrIcL courL. United
Stctes t. Vcn, q1 .zd 8q, 8; (6LI CIr. 1qq1).
Case 3:l3-cv-05038-FLW-LHG Document 57 Filed ll/08/l3 Page l4 of 66 PagelD: l474
#&

renncn, ;q .zd uL 1qo, und, LIuL u proposed InLervenor Is permILLed Lo
InLervene on LIe busIs oI un exIsLIng purLy's sLundIng Lo usserL LIe cIuIm uL
Issue, bused upon wIuL LIe Supreme CourL has described as piggyback
sLundIng. See Dicmond, q;6 U.S. uL 6q, 68-q. SucI sLundIng Is permIssIbIe
becuuse "|I|n LIuL cIrcumsLunce LIe IederuI courL Ius u Cuse or
ConLroversy beIore IL regurdIess oI LIe sLundIng oI LIe InLervenor." Cit oj
Colo., 8; .d uL 1o;q.
TIe EIevenLI CIrcuIL Ius expIuIned LIuL LIe sLundIng requIremenL
exIsLs Lo ensure LIuL u jusLIcIubIe cuse or conLroversy exIsLs. Chiles, 86
.zd uL 1z1z-1, und, RuIe zq, uuLIorIzIng InLervenLIon, presumes LIuL u
jusLIcIubIe cuse or conLroversy uIreudy exIsLs beIore LIe courL. See Id., see
clso, ;C WrIgIL, MIIIer, und Kune, ederuI PrucLIce und Procedure: CIvII
zd 1q1; (zd ed. 1q86) uL q; ("nLervenLIon presupposes LIe pendency oI
un ucLIon In u courL oI compeLenL jurIsdIcLIon . . . .") (IooLnoLe omILLed).
Becuuse u courL's subjecL muLLer jurIsdIcLIon Is necessurIIy esLubIIsIed
beIore InLervenLIon, LIe Chiles courL IeId LIuL u purLy seekIng Lo InLervene
need noL Iuve IndependenL sLundIng. Id. uL 1z1z-1.
WIIIe LIe TIIrd CIrcuIL Ius noL spoken on LIIs muLLer und LIere ure
no cuses on LIIs Issue In LIIs dIsLrIcL, LIere ure uL IeusL LIree oLIer dIsLrIcL
courL opInIons In LIIs cIrcuIL LIuL Iuve Iound LIuL un InLervenor need noL
Iuve IndependenL sLundIng Lo purLIcIpuLe In dIsLrIcL courL proceedIngs.
See Indicn Riter Recoter Co. t. The Chinc, 1o8 .R.D. 8, 86-8; (D.
Del. 1985) (an intervenor need noL Iuve sLundIng necessury Lo Iuve
InILIuLed LIe IuwsuIL); Cocc-Colc ottlin Co. oj Elizcbethtoun, Inc. t.
Case 3:l3-cv-05038-FLW-LHG Document 57 Filed ll/08/l3 Page l5 of 66 PagelD: l475
#'

The Cocc-Colc Co., 696 F. Supp. 57, 93 (D. Del. 1988) (The fact that [a
purLy| Iuck|s| sLundIng, Iowever, does noL conLroI LIe unuIysIs oI wIeLIer
|IL| |Is| enLILIed Lo InLervene.); United Stctes t. Germcntoun Settlement
Homes, Inc., No. 8q-z6zz, 1q8 U.S. DIsL. EXS 181q, uL 6 n.1 (E.D. Pu.
JuI. , 1q8).
IInd LIe reusonIng oI LIose courLs LIuL do noL requIre IndependenL
sLundIng by un InLervenor Lo be persuusIve. IrsL, LIe consLILuLIonuI
requIremenL oI sLundIng onIy speuks Lo wIeLIer LIe IederuI dIsLrIcL courL
Ius u jusLIcIubIe conLroversy. n my vIew, so Iong LIere Is u cuse or
conLroversy beIore LIe courL, IL Is noL necessury LIuL un InLervenor Iuve
IndependenL sLundIng. RuLIer, RuIe zq uIms Lo promoLe LIe eIIIcIenL und
orderIy use oI judIcIuI resources by uIIowIng persons Lo purLIcIpuLe In LIe
IuwsuIL Lo proLecL LIeIr InLeresLs or vIndIcuLe LIeIr rIgILs. n LIuL
IurLIerunce oI LIe RuIe, LIe courL mukes u deLermInuLIon wIeLIer LIose
InLeresLs wouId be ImpuIred by LIe dIsposILIon oI LIe cuse. mposIng
standing on an intervenor would eviscerate Rule 24s practical approacI.
And, IurLIermore, sucI u resLrIcLIon wouId ImpInge on LIe purposes oI
permIssIve InLervenLIon. AccordIngIy, IInd LIuL Gurden SLuLe need noL
sepuruLeIy suLIsIy sLundIng requIremenLs Lo InLervene.
46 2>;G@FF@?> #97>;?>97@<9 2H;FH897 7< *HI> JKLCM
Gurden SLuLe seeks Lo InLervene on LIe busIs oI permIssIve
InLervenLIon. PermIssIve InLervenLIon under RuIe zq requIres (1) LIe
moLIon Lo be LImeIy; (z) un uppIIcunL's cIuIm or deIense und LIe muIn
ucLIon Iuve u quesLIon oI Iuw or IucL In common; und () LIe InLervenLIon
Case 3:l3-cv-05038-FLW-LHG Document 57 Filed ll/08/l3 Page l6 of 66 PagelD: l476
#(

muy noL cuuse undue deIuy or prejudIce Lo LIe orIgInuI purLIes' rIgILs. See
ed. R. CIv. P. zq(b); see clso N.C.A.A. t. Goternor oj N.1., zo ed. Appx.
61, 6 (d CIr. zo1); Appleton t. Comm'r, qo ed. Appx. 1, 1;-8 (d
CIr. zo11). So Iong us LIese LIresIoId requIremenLs ure meL, wIeLIer Lo
uIIow u purLy Lo permIssIveIy InLervene Is IeIL Lo LIe sound dIscreLIon oI LIe
courL. See N.C.A.A., zo ed. Appx uL 6.
As to the first factor, Garden States motion is timely. Garden SLuLe
moved Lo InLervene onIy 1q duys uILer LIe CompIuInL wus IIIed. WIIIe
PIuInLIIIs suggesL LIuL LIey dId noL Iuve suIIIcIenL LIme Lo respond Lo
Garden States briefing, the CourL Ius provIded uII purLIes un opporLunILy
to respond to each others argumenLs. TIere wus more LIun suIIIcIenL
LIme Ior PIuInLIIIs Lo uddress uny urgumenLs mude by Gurden SLuLe beIore
LIe summury judgmenL IeurIng. And, Indeed, LIe CourL uIIorded PIuInLIIIs
un opporLunILy Lo submIL suppIemenLuI brIeIIng on Issues LIey deemed
ImporLunL uILer LIe IeurIng, IncIudIng on LIe quesLIon oI LIe proposed
intervenors standing.
NexL, PIuInLIIIs conLend LIuL InLervenLIon Is noL necessury becuuse
Garden States interests are already adequately represented by
DeIendunLs. However, LIe presence oI overIuppIng InLeresLs beLween
Gurden SLuLe und LIe SLuLe does noL precIude permIssIve InLervenLIon.
RuLIer, |L|Ie sIured InLeresLs oI |Gurden SLuLe| und LIe sLuLe deIendunLs
supporL |Gurden SLuLes| urgumenL LIuL IL sIures u common quesLIon oI
Iuw wILI LIe currenL ucLIon becuuse IL pIuns Lo deIend LIe consLILuLIonuIILy
oI |A;1|, LIe subjecL oI LIe dIspuLe beLween pIuInLIIIs und LIe sLuLe
Case 3:l3-cv-05038-FLW-LHG Document 57 Filed ll/08/l3 Page l7 of 66 PagelD: l477
#)

defendants. Piclup t. roun, No. 1z-zqq;, zo1z U.S. DIsL. EXS
1;zoz;, uL 1-1q (E.D. CuI. Dec. q, zo1z). ndeed, PIuInLIIIs Iuve noL
disputed that Garden States claims or defenses share common questions
oI Iuw or IucL wILI LIIs ucLIon. AccordIngIy, IInd LIuL LIe second IucLor Is
suLIsIIed.
PIuInLIIIs uIso conLend LIuL uIIowIng Gurden SLuLe Lo InLervene
wouId cuuse un undue deIuy oI LIe resoIuLIon oI PIuInLIIIs cIuIms becuuse
IL wouId resuIL In uddILIonuI brIeIIng by PIuInLIIIs. do noL IInd LIIs
urgumenL convIncIng. As I have already explained, Garden States filings
In LIIs muLLer wouId noL unduIy expund Plaintiffs submissions because
Garden States arguments and positions are similar to those advanced by
LIe SLuLe. n oLIer words, wIIIe PIuInLIIIs muy Iuve expended uddILIonuI
LIme or expense in order to respond to Garden States argumenLs, LIose
eIIorLs ure noL unduIy prejudIcIuI or burdensome. RuLIer, conLrury Lo
Plaintiffs position, I find that Garden State has provIded u IeIpIuI,
uILernuLIve vIewpoInL Irom LIe vunLuge oI some persons wIo Iuve
undergone SOCE LreuLmenL or ure poLenLIuI puLIenLs oI LreuLmenL LIuL wIII
uId LIe courL In resoIvIng pIuInLIIIs' cIuIms IuIIy und IuIrIy. Id. uL 1q.
AccordIngIy, IuvIng suLIsIIed LIe RuIe zq(b) IucLors, Gurden SLuLe Is
gIven Ieuve Lo InLervene.
###6 %I>?>97N )G>9:G>97

n LIeIr CompIuInL, PIuInLIIIs brIng puruIIeI sLuLe consLILuLIonuI
cIuIms uguInsL DeIendunLs und LIey seek InjuncLIve und decIuruLory reIIeI,
us weII us nomInuI money dumuges. DeIendunLs urgue LIuL LIe EIevenLI
Case 3:l3-cv-05038-FLW-LHG Document 57 Filed ll/08/l3 Page l8 of 66 PagelD: l478
#*

Amendment bars Plaintiffs 1983 claims for money dumuges und sLuLe
consLILuLIonuI cIuIms. DurIng LIe IeurIng, PIuInLIIIs urgued LIuL LIey ure
enLILIed Lo nomInuI money dumuges In LIIs ucLIon sIouId LIey prevuII.
SInce PIuInLIIIs dId noL brIeI LIeIr posILIon on LIIs Issue, LIe CourL
provIded PIuInLIIIs un opporLunILy Lo submIL uddILIonuI brIeIIng. nsLeud
oI uny subsLunLIve response, PIuInLIIIs subsequenLIy wILIdrew LIeIr cIuIm
Ior nomInuI dumuges.
11
See Plaintiffs Response on CIuIm Ior NomInuI
Dumuges, p. z. Moreover, PIuInLIIIs Iuve uIso wILIdruwn LIeIr sLuLe
consLILuLIonuI cIuIms.
1z
See Tr., T;:zz-T8:z.

##
ndeed, IL Is cIeur LIuL LIe EIevenLI AmendmenL burs suILs Ior
dumuges, pursuunL Lo qz U.S.C. 1q8, uguInsL sLuLe oIIIcIuIs sued In LIeIr
oIIIcIuI cupucILIes. TIe EIevenLI AmendmenL provIdes "|L|Ie JudIcIuI
power oI LIe UnILed SLuLes sIuII noL be consLrued Lo exLend Lo uny suIL In
Iuw or equILy, commenced or prosecuLed uguInsL one oI LIe UnILed SLuLes
by CILIzens oI unoLIer SLuLe, or by CILIzens or SubjecLs oI uny oreIgn
SLuLe." U.S. ConsL. umend. X. L Is beyond cuvII LIuL LIe EIevenLI
AmendmenL proLecLs sLuLes und LIeIr ugencIes und depurLmenLs Irom suIL
In IederuI courL. See cete t. Ricci, q8q ed. Appx. qo, qz (d CIr.
zo1z); Hcjer t. Melo, oz U.S. z1, o (1qq1). SImIIurIy, ubsenL consenL by
u sLuLe, LIe EIevenLI AmendmenL burs IederuI courL suILs Ior money
dumuges uguInsL sLuLe oIIIcers In LIeIr oIIIcIuI cupucILIes, Id., und secLIon
1q8 does noL overrIde u sLuLe's EIevenLI AmendmenL ImmunILy.

1z
Under LIe EIevenLI AmendmenL, unIIke IederuI cIuIms seekIng
prospecLIve InjuncLIve reIIeI, PIuInLIIIs muy noL brIng sLuLe Iuw cIuIms
IncIudIng sLuLe consLILuLIonuI cIuIms uguInsL LIe SLuLe regurdIess LIe Lype
oI reIIeI IL seeks. See Pennhurst Stcte Sch. & Hosp. t. Hcldermcn, q6
U.S. 8q, 1oq-o6 (1q8q). IkewIse, suppIemenLuI jurIsdIcLIon does noL
uuLIorIze dIsLrIcL courLs Lo exercIse jurIsdIcLIon over cIuIms uguInsL non-
consenting states. There is no doubt that the Eleventh Amendment bars
LIe udjudIcuLIon oI pendenL sLuLe Iuw cIuIms uguInsL nonconsenLIng sLuLe
defendants in federal court. Rcor t. Reents oj the Unit. oj Minn., q
U.S. , qo-q1 (zooz).
Case 3:l3-cv-05038-FLW-LHG Document 57 Filed ll/08/l3 Page l9 of 66 PagelD: l479
!+

AccordIngIy, uII IederuI cIuIms Ior moneLury dumuges -- Iowever
nomInuI -- uguInsL DeIendunLs In LIeIr oIIIcIuI cupucILIes ure burred, und
Plaintiffs state constitutional claims, I.e., CounLs und V, ure dIsmIssed.
#O6 $N@;:P28;7D (789:@9E
As u jurIsdIcLIonuI muLLer, DeIendunLs conLend LIuL PIuInLIIIs Iuck
LIIrd-purLy sLundIng Lo pursue cIuIms on beIuII oI Plaintiffs mInor cIIenLs
und purenLs. As dIscussed prevIousIy, Lo suLIsIy LIe "cuse or conLroversy"
sLundIng requIremenL under ArLIcIe , u pIuInLIII musL esLubIIsI LIuL IL
Ius suIIered u cognIzubIe Injury LIuL Is cuusuIIy reIuLed Lo LIe uIIeged
conducL oI LIe deIendunL und Is redressubIe by judIcIuI ucLIon. ApurL Irom
LIose sLundIng requIremenLs, LIe Supreme CourL Ius Imposed u seL oI
prudenLIuI IImILuLIons on LIe exercIse oI IederuI jurIsdIcLIon over LIIrd-
purLy cIuIms. ennett t. Specr, zo U.S. 1q, 16z (1qq;) ("TIe IederuI
judIcIury Ius uIso udIered Lo u seL oI prudenLIuI prIncIpIes LIuL beur on LIe
quesLIon oI sLundIng.") (quoLuLIon und cILuLIon omILLed); Pouell t. Ride,
18q .d 8;, qoq (d CIr. 1qqq). TIe resLrIcLIons uguInsL LIIrd-purLy
sLundIng do noL sLem Irom LIe ArLIcIe "cuse or conLroversy"
requIremenL, buL ruLIer Irom prudenLIuI concerns, Amcto t. Wilentz, qz
.zd ;qz, ;q8 (d CIr. 1q91), which prevent courts from decIdIng
quesLIons oI broud socIuI ImporL wIere no IndIvIduuI rIgILs wouId be
vIndIcuLed und . . . IImIL uccess Lo LIe IederuI courLs Lo LIose IILIgunLs besL
suILed to assert a particular claim. Glcdstone Recltors t. Vill. oj
elluood, qq1 U.S. q1, qq-1oo (1q;q); Sec' oj Stcte t. 1oseph H. Munson
Co., q6; U.S. qq;, q (1q8q).
Case 3:l3-cv-05038-FLW-LHG Document 57 Filed ll/08/l3 Page 20 of 66 PagelD: l480
!#

L Is ImporLunL Lo beur In mInd LIuL In LIe jurIsprudence oI
standing, a IILIgunL musL usserL IIs or Ier own IeguI rIgILs und InLeresLs,
und cunnoL resL u cIuIm Lo reIIeI on LIe IeguI rIgILs or InLeresLs oI LIIrd
parties. Pouers t. Dhio, qqq U.S. qoo, q1o (1qq1); Vclle Iore Christicn
Coll. t. Ams. United jor Sepcrction oj Church cnd Stcte, Inc., qq U.S.
q6q, q;q-; (1q8z); Wheeler t. Trctelers Ins. Co., zz .d q, 8 (d
CIr. 1qqq). TIIs prIncIpIe Is bused on LIe ussumpLIon LIuL "LIIrd purLIes
LIemseIves usuuIIy wIII be LIe besL proponenLs oI LIeIr own rIgILs,"
Sinleton t. Wuljj, qz8 U.S. 1o6, 11q (1q;6) (pIuruIILy opInIon), wIIcI
serves Lo IosLer judIcIuI resLruInL und ensure LIe cIeur presenLuLIon oI
Issues. See Munson, q6; U.S. uL q.
TIe proIIbILIon uguInsL LIIrd-purLy sLundIng, Iowever, Is noL
ubsoIuLe. TIe Supreme CourL Ius Iound LIuL LIe prIncIpIes unImuLIng
LIese prudenLIuI concerns ure noL subverLed II LIe LIIrd purLy Is IIndered
Irom usserLIng ILs own rIgILs und sIures un IdenLILy oI InLeresLs wILI LIe
pIuInLIII. See Crci t. oren, qzq U.S. 1qo, 1q-qq (1q;6); Sinleton, qz8
U.S. uL 11q-1; Eisenstcdt t. cird, qo U.S. q8, qq-q6 (1q;z). Bused on
LIuL recognILIon, LIIrd-purLy sLundIng Is permILLed so Iong us LIe pIuInLIII
cun suLIsIy LIree precondILIons: 1) LIe pIuInLIII musL suIIer Injury; z) LIe
pIuInLIII und LIe LIIrd purLy musL Iuve u "cIose reIuLIonsIIp"; und ) LIe
LIIrd purLy musL Iuce some obsLucIes LIuL prevenL IL Irom pursuIng ILs own
cIuIms. Pouers, qqq U.S. uL q11; Pitt Neus, z1 .d uL 6z. L remuIns Ior
courLs Lo buIunce LIese IucLors Lo deLermIne II LIIrd-purLy sLundIng Is
wurrunLed. Amcto, qz .zd uL ;o.
Case 3:l3-cv-05038-FLW-LHG Document 57 Filed ll/08/l3 Page 2l of 66 PagelD: l48l
!!

Here, PIuInLIIIs usserL consLILuLIonuI cIuIms on beIuII oI LIeIr mInor
cIIenLs und purenLs. To esLubIIsI sLundIng Ior LIese LIIrd purLIes, PIuInLIIIs
musL, In LIe IIrsL InsLunce, sIow LIuL LIey Iuve suIIered un Injury. ndeed,
PIuInLIIIs ubIIILy Lo brIng LIIrd-purLy cIuIms IInges on wIeLIer LIey
suIIered uny consLILuLIonuI wrongs by LIe pussuge oI A;1.
1
TIIs
quesLIon wIII be uddressed exLensIveIy IuLer In LIIs OpInIon, und, becuuse
LIe CourL IInds LIuL PIuInLIIIs Iuve suIIered no InjurIes, LIey cunnoL meeL
LIe IIrsL IucLor. urLIermore, PIuInLIIIs cunnoL meeL LIe LIIrd eIemenL oI
LIe LesL. ndeed, durIng LIe pendency oI LIIs muLLer, u mInor und IIs
purenLs IIIed suIL In LIIs CourL, cIuIIengIng LIe consLILuLIonuIILy oI A;1.
TIereIore, sInce LIese IILIgunLs ure brIngIng LIeIr own ucLIon uguInsL
DeIendunLs, LIere cun be no serIous urgumenL LIuL LIese LIIrd purLIes ure
IucIng obsLucIes LIuL wouId prevenL LIem Irom pursuIng LIeIr own cIuIms.
AccordIngIy, IInd LIuL PIuInLIIIs do noL meeL LIIrd-purLy sLundIng
requIremenLs, und LIus, CounLs und V ure dIsmIssed us weII.
O6 -@;F7 )G>9:G>97-;>>:<G <= (Q>>RN
PIuInLIIIs IIrsL cIuIIenge LIe consLILuLIonuIILy oI A;1 on LIe
ground LIuL IL vIoIuLes LIeIr IrsL AmendmenL rIgIL Lo Iree speecI,
conLendIng LIuL LIe sLuLuLe consLILuLes un ImpermIssIbIe vIewpoInL und
conLenL-bused resLrIcLIon on LIeIr ubIIILy Lo dIscuss und enguge In SOCE.
SpecIIIcuIIy, PIuInLIIIs urgue LIuL LIe sLuLuLe IorbIds IIcensed counseIors

CY
PIuInLIIIs concede LIuL LIeIr ubIIILy Lo brIng LIIrd-purLy cIuIms
depends upon wIeLIer LIey Iuve suIIered uny InjurIes us u resuIL oI LIe
pussuge oI A;1. See T8:1;-Tq1;.

Case 3:l3-cv-05038-FLW-LHG Document 57 Filed ll/08/l3 Page 22 of 66 PagelD: l482
!$

Irom boLI (1) speukIng on or ubouL LIe subjecL oI SOCE Lo LIeIr mInor
cIIenLs, IncIudIng recommendIng SOCE or reIerrIng u cIIenL Lo SOCE, und
(z) udmInIsLerIng SOCE Lo LIeIr mInor cIIenLs under uny cIrcumsLunce,
regardless of the clients informed consent to the practice. Plaintiffs posit
LIuL becuuse psycIoLIerupy Is currIed ouL vIrLuuIIy excIusIveIy LIrougI
talk therapy, any restriction on a therapists ability to engage in a
purLIcular type of therapy is therefore a restriction on that therapists First
AmendmenL Iree speecI rIgIL. TIus, PIuInLIIIs urgue, LIuL us u reguIuLIon
oI speecI, A;1 cunnoL survIve LIe uppIIcubIe sLundurd oI revIew, i.e.,
sLrIcL scruLIny.
The State rejects Plaintiffs interpretation of A3371, and, in
purLIcuIur, LIuL LIe sLuLuLe reguIuLes, or ImpIIcuLes, speecI In uny Iorm.
RuLIer, LIe SLuLe cIuIms LIuL LIe sLuLuLe mereIy resLrIcLs u IIcensed
proIessIonuI Irom engugIng In prucLIcIng SOCE counseIIng, und
accordingly is a rational exercise of the States long-recognIzed power Lo
reusonubIy reguIuLe LIe counseIIng proIessIons. n LIuL connecLIon, LIe
SLuLe usserLs LIuL A;1 LurgeLs conducL onIy, noL speecI. AccordIngIy,
DeIendunLs urgue LIuL LIe sLuLuLe does noL ImpIIcuLe uny IundumenLuI
consLILuLIonuI rIgIL und wILIsLunds ruLIonuI busIs revIew.
L Is cIeur LIuL LIe LIresIoId Issue beIore LIe CourL Is wIeLIer A;1
reguIuLes consLILuLIonuIIy proLecLed speecI. IIrsL deLermIne wIeLIer LIe
sLuLuLe on ILs Iuce seeks Lo reguIuLe speecI; LIen Lurn Lo wIeLIer LIe
sLuLuLe Ius LIe eIIecL oI burdenIng speecI or expressIve conducL.
UILImuLeIy, II LIe sLuLuLe does noL ImpIIcuLe or burden consLILuLIonuIIy
Case 3:l3-cv-05038-FLW-LHG Document 57 Filed ll/08/l3 Page 23 of 66 PagelD: l483
!%

proLecLed speecI or expressIon In uny munner, uppIy ruLIonuI busIs
revIew. I, Iowever, LIe sLuLuLe does seek Lo reguIuLe speecI or Ius LIe
eIIecL oI burdenIng proLecLed speecI, dIrecLIy or IncIdenLuIIy, musL
deLermIne LIe degree oI consLILuLIonuI proLecLIon uIIorded Lo, us weII us
LIe resuILIng burden on, LIuL speecI und LIen uppIy LIe upproprIuLe
sLundurd oI revIew.
noLe LIuL A;1 Is u noveI sLuLuLe In New Jersey und oLIer
jurIsdIcLIons wILIIn LIe TIIrd CIrcuIL, us Is LIe Issue oI wIeLIer counseIIng,
by meuns oI LuIk LIerupy, Is enLILIed Lo uny specIuI consLILuLIonuI
proLecLIon. However, do noL sLurL wILI u bIunk sIuLe. usL yeur,
CuIIIornIu pussed u Iuw, SB 11;z, LIuL Is vIrLuuIIy IdenLIcuI Lo A;1 In boLI
Iunguuge und purpose. AILer Lwo dIsLrIcL courL cIuIIenges, one IIndIng SB
11;z consLILuLIonuI, Piclup t. roun, No. 1z-ozqq;, zo1z W 6oz1q6
(E.D. CuI., Dec. q, zo1z), LIe oLIer noL, Welch t. roun, qo; . Supp. zd
11oz (E.D. CuI. zo1z), u puneI Ior LIe NInLI CIrcuIL CourL oI AppeuIs
concIuded LIuL LIe sLuLuLe Is consLILuLIonuI.
1q
See Piclup t. roun, ;z8
.d 1oqz (qLI CIr. zo1). AILIougI LIe Piclup decIsIon Is noL bIndIng on
me, gIven LIe reIevunce oI LIIs opInIon, und LIe deurLI oI decIsIons Irom
LIe TIIrd CIrcuIL or oLIer jurIsdIcLIons uddressIng LIe InLerpIuy beLween
consLILuLIonuIIy proLecLed speecI und proIessIonuI counseIIng, wIII Lurn

CF
PIuInLIIIs poInL ouL LIuL LIe NInLI CIrcuIL Ius dIrecLed LIe purLIes
InvoIved In LIe CuIIIornIu sLuLuLe IILIguLIon Lo brIeI wIeLIer en bcnc revIew
of the panels decIsIon wouId be upproprIuLe. As oI LIe duLe oI LIIs
OpInIon, Iowever, no order Ior en bcnc revIew Ius Issued.
Case 3:l3-cv-05038-FLW-LHG Document 57 Filed ll/08/l3 Page 24 of 66 PagelD: l484
!&

to the Ninth Circuits decision where appropriate, and explain my reason
Ior so doIng.
)6 )SSTU &<>F "<7 *>EHI87> (Q>>RN
begIn by revIewIng LIe pIuIn Iunguuge oI A;1. Even u cursory
revIew reveuIs LIuL LIe sLuLuLe nowIere reIerences speecI or
communIcuLIon; InsLeud, LIe sLuLuLe conLuIns words und pIruses LIuL ure
generuIIy ussocIuLed wILI conducL. or exumpIe, LIe operuLIve sLuLuLory
language directs that a licensed counselor shall not ence in sexuuI
orIenLuLIon cIunge ejjorts, and further defines sexual orientation
change efforts as the prcctice oI seekIng Lo cIunge u persons sexual
orientation. N.J.S.A. q:1- (empIusIs udded). SucI Iunguuge Is
commonIy undersLood Lo reIer Lo conducL, und noL speecI, expressIon, or
some oLIer Iorm oI communIcuLIon. See, e.., crnes t. Glen Thectre,
Inc., o1 U.S. 6o, ;z-; (1qq1) (ScuIIu, J., concurrIng) (noLIng LIuL u
criminal statute prohibiting a person from engag[ing], appear[ing], or
fondl[ing] is not directed at expression in particular); United Stctes t.
Tlcrsl, qq6 .d q8, q; (d CIr. zoo6) (IucIuIIy revIewIng sLuLuLe
wILI LIe operuLIve words engage in prostitution and determining this
Lerm governed conducL); cj. Associcted Iilm Distribution Corp. t.
Thornburh, 68 .zd 8o8, 81q n.8 (d CIr. 1q8z) (IIndIng LIuL
PennsyIvunIu sLuLuLe reguIuLIng LIe bIddIng, dIsLrIbuLIon, screenIng, und
exIIbILIon oI moLIon pIcLures Lo Iuve no facial impact upon speech);
United Stctes t. Elcom Ltd., zo . Supp. zd 1111, 11z8 (N.D. CuI. zooz)
(finding that portion of Copyright Act that ban[ned] trafficking in devices,
Case 3:l3-cv-05038-FLW-LHG Document 57 Filed ll/08/l3 Page 25 of 66 PagelD: l485
!'

whether software, hardware, or other dId noL on ILs Iuce LurgeL speecI).
Moreover, LIe NInLI CIrcuIL reucIed LIe sume concIusIon In Piclup, ;z8
.d 1oqz, IIndIng LIuL LIe sLuLuLe dId noL ImpIIcuLe speecI. SpecIIIcuIIy,
LIe Piclup puneI deLermIned LIuL LIe CuIIIornIu Iuw dId noL do uny oI LIe
IoIIowIng:
PrevenL menLuI IeuILI provIders Irom communIcuLIng wILI
LIe pubIIc ubouL SOCE
PrevenL menLuI IeuILI provIders Irom expressIng LIeIr vIews
Lo puLIenLs, wIeLIer cIIIdren or uduILs, ubouL SOCE,
IomosexuuIILy, or uny oLIer LopIc
PrevenL menLuI IeuILI provIders Irom recommendIng SOCE
Lo puLIenLs, wIeLIer cIIIdren or uduILs
PrevenL menLuI IeuILI provIders Irom udmInIsLerIng SOCE
Lo uny person wIo Is 18 yeurs oI uge or oIder
PrevenL menLuI IeuILI provIders Irom reIerrIng mInors Lo
unIIcensed counseIors, sucI us reIIgIous Ieuders
PrevenL unIIcensed provIders, sucI us reIIgIous Ieuders, Irom
udmInIsLerIng SOCE Lo cIIIdren or uduILs
PrevenL mInors Irom seekIng SOCE Irom menLuI IeuILI
provIders In oLIer sLuLes

Id. uL 1oqq-o. IInd LIuL LIe Piclup panels explanation of the reucI oI
LIe California law applies with equal force to A3371, given the statutes
sImIIurILIes. NoLIIng In LIe pIuIn Iunguuge oI A;1 prevenLs IIcensed
proIessIonuIs Irom voIcIng LIeIr opInIons on LIe upproprIuLeness or
eIIIcucy oI SOCE, eILIer In pubIIc or prIvuLe seLLIngs. ndeed, A;1 does
noL prevenL u IIcensed proIessIonuI Irom, Ior exumpIe, IecLurIng ubouL
SOCE uL u conIerence or provIdIng IILeruLure Lo u cIIenL on SOCE; LIe
sLuLuLe onIy proIIbILs u IIcensed proIessIonuI Irom engugIng In counseIIng
Ior LIe purpose oI ucLuuIIy prucLIcIng SOCE. n IIgIL oI LIe IoregoIngund
Plaintiffs failure to provide any subsLunLIve supporL Lo LIe conLrury, oLIer
Case 3:l3-cv-05038-FLW-LHG Document 57 Filed ll/08/l3 Page 26 of 66 PagelD: l486
!(

LIun LIeIr own subjecLIve InLerpreLuLIons IInd LIuL A;1 does noL
dIrecLIy reguIuLe or LurgeL speecI on ILs Iuce.
n LIuL regurd, uILIougI PIuInLIIIs do noL meunIngIuIIy udvunce un
urgumenL LIuL A;1 reguIuLes speecI per se, PIuInLIIIs neverLIeIess
contend that A3371 clearly targets speech by virtue of the statutes
uppIIcuLIon soIeIy Lo IIcensed counselors. AccordIng Lo PIuInLIIIs, SOCE
counseling necessarily implicates speech because SOCE counseling is talk
therapy. See DecI. oI Dr. Turu KIng, $ 1z;
1
see clso PI. RepIy, 8

CX
puuse brIeIIy Lo noLe LIuL, IoIIowIng oruI urgumenL In LIIs muLLer,
Plaintiffs filed a motion to Reconsider Dispensing of Evidence and Deem
Certain Facts Admitted. See Dkt. No. 50. The thrust of Plaintiffs motion
Is LwoIoId: (1) Ior LIe CourL Lo reconsIder ILs ruIIng LIuL IL wouId noL
consider evidence submitted in connection with Plaintiffs summary
judgmenL moLIon, und (z) Lo deem LIe facts in Plaintiffs Complaint
admitted by virtue of the States failure to timely file an answer. Both of
LIese urgumenLs ure wILIouL merIL.
IrsL, PIuInLIIIs ure mIsLuken In LIeIr beIIeI LIuL Iuve mude uny
ruIIng wILI respecL Lo consIderuLIon oI LIeIr supporLIng decIuruLIons und
other evidence. At oral argument, in a colloquy with Plaintiffs counsel, I
mude cIeur LIuL wouId consIder decIuruLIons Irom LIe numed PIuInLIIIs us
they are absolutely relevant. Tr., T59:25-T6o:8. expIIcILIy sLuLed LIuL
Im taking [Plaintiffs] declarations, and that [i]f I find something in
there that shouldnt be considered, Ill make a note of it. Id. uL T6o:1z-1q.
WILI respecL Lo oLIer decIuruLIons und evIdence IIIed by PIuInLIIIs und
nLervenor, noLed LIuL LIere were voIumes oI submIssIons und
objecLIons, buL LIuL wus noL mukIng uny ruIIngs on LIe udmIssIbIIILy oI
LIe submILLed evIdence unIess und unLII deLermIned LIuL sucI evIdence
wus necessury und upproprIuLe Lo decIdIng LIe Issues In LIIs muLLer. Id. uL
T8:1z-q:. n LIuL connecLIon, expIuIned LIuL LIe Iuw wus cIeur LIuL II
were Lo IInd ruLIonuI busIs revIew uppIIes Lo A;1, IL wouId be
unnecessary to consider evidence beyond the legislatures stated findings,
und LIus LIere Is no reuson Lo premuLureIy decIde LIe udmIssIbIy oI sucI
evIdence. Id. uL Tq:q-11. Accordingly, there is no basis for Plaintiffs
reconsideration motion, and Plaintiffs motion is denied in that regard.
Second, PIuInLIIIs ure noL enLILIed Lo Iuve cerLuIn IucLs In LIeIr
CompIuInL be deemed udmILLed. nILIuIIy, PIuInLIIIs IIIed LIeIr CompIuInL
uccompunIed by u moLIon Ior u preIImInury InjuncLIon. oIIowIng u
conversuLIon wILI counseI Ior PIuInLIIIs und LIe SLuLe on AugusL z;, zo1,
Case 3:l3-cv-05038-FLW-LHG Document 57 Filed ll/08/l3 Page 27 of 66 PagelD: l487
!)

(Plaintiffs counseling involves no nonspeecI eIemenLs, und sIouId be
considered pure speech.). Plaintiffs explain that:
SOCE counseIIng consIsLs oI dIscussIons wILI LIe cIIenL
concernIng LIe nuLure und cuuse oI LIeIr unwunLed sume-sex
sexuuI uLLrucLIons, beIuvIors, or IdenLILy; LIe exLenL oI LIese
uLLrucLIons, beIuvIors, or IdenLILy; ussIsLunce In
undersLundIng LrudILIonuI, gender-upproprIuLe beIuvIors und
cIurucLerIsLIcs; und ussIsLunce In IosLerIng und deveIopIng
LIose gender-upproprIuLe beIuvIors und cIurucLerIsLIcs.

DecI. oI Dr. JosepI NIcoIosI, $ 1o. SImIIurIy, durIng oruI urgumenL,
counsel for Plaintiffs stated that SOCE therapists simply talk to [their
cIIenLs| . . . ubouL wIuL LIeIr uILImuLe objecLIves ure, und LIey wouId Lry Lo
gIve LIem supporL Lo reucI LIuL objecLIve, wIIcI In LIIs cuse wouId be
change. Tr., T18:18-z. PIuInLIIIs IurLIer sLress LIuL LIey do noL use uny
aversion techniques
16
wILI cIIenLs seekIng Lo cIunge LIeIr sexuuI

LIe purLIes ugreed LIuL (1) LIe CompIuInL presenLed u IeguI Issue onIy, (z)
Plaintiffs motion should be treated as one for summary judgment, and (3)
LIe SLuLe sIouId be gIven LIe opporLunILy Lo IIIe ILs own cross-moLIon Ior
summury judgmenL. See DkL. No. 1. Under LIe ederuI RuIes oI CIvII
Procedure, LIe LIme In wIIcI u purLy musL IIIe u responsIve pIeudIng Lo u
cIuIm Is LoIIed II LIuL purLy eIecLs Lo InsLeud IIIe u moLIon Lo dIsmIss. See
ed. R. CIv. P. 1z(u)(q). n LIuL connecLIon, RuIe 1z uIso permILs u courL Lo
converL u moLIon Lo dIsmIss InLo one Ior summury judgmenL II evIdence
Ius been presenLed uIong wILI LIe moLIon. n IIgIL oI RuIe 1z, und gIven
LIe uLypIcuI proceduruI deveIopmenLs In LIIs muLLer, LIe SLuLe Is noL yeL
required to file an answer to the Complaint. Accordingly, Plaintiffs
moLIon Lo deem udmILLed IucLs In LIe CompIuInL Is denIed.

16
As Plaintiff King explained in her declaration, aversion techniques,
sucI us eIecLrosIock LreuLmenLs, pornogrupIIc vIewIng, nuuseu-InducIng
drugs, eLc. ure uneLIIcuI meLIods oI LreuLmenL LIuL Iuve noL been used by
uny eLIIcuI und IIcensed menLuI IeuILI professional in decades. DecI. oI
Dr. Turu KIng, $ 1z; see clso Piclup, ;z8 .d uL 1oq8-49 (In the past,
uversIve LreuLmenLs IncIuded InducIng nuuseu, vomILIng, or puruIysIs;
provIdIng eIecLrIc sIocks; or IuvIng un IndIvIduuI snup un eIusLIc bund
uround LIe wrIsL wIen uroused by sume-sex eroLIc Imuges or LIougILs.
Even more drastic methods, such as castration, have been used.).
Case 3:l3-cv-05038-FLW-LHG Document 57 Filed ll/08/l3 Page 28 of 66 PagelD: l488
!*

orIenLuLIon, und LIuL LIey onIy enguge In SOCE wILI cIIenLs wIo, IoIIowIng
InIormed consenL, voIunLurIIy wIsI Lo receIve sucI counseIIng. See, e..,
DecI. oI Dr. Turu KIng, $$ 1o, 1z-1; DecI. oI Dr. JosepI NIcoIosI, $$ ;-8.
In sum, Plaintiffs position is that, regardless of whether A3371 facially
uppeurs Lo LurgeL conducL, LIe sLuLuLe Is dIrected at counseling, and
counseIIng, us reIevunL Iere, consIsLs uImosL soIeIy oI LuIk LIerupy; LIus,
A;1 eIIecLs u consLILuLIonuIIy ImpermIssIbIe vIewpoInL und conLenL
based restriction on Plaintiffs speech. In contrast, the State maintains
LIuL counseIIng Is conducL, subjecL Lo reguIuLIon by LIe sLuLe, und LIuL
A;1, by ILs own Lerms, onIy governs counseIIng; LIe sLuLuLe does noL
prevenL u IIcensed counseIor Irom speukIng ubouL SOCE, buL onIy
proIIbILs LIe ucLuuI prucLIce oI counseIIng Lo cIunge u mInors sexuuI
orIenLuLIon.
Plaintiffs argument rests entirely on the premise that SOCE
counseling, in the form of talk therapy, is speech in the constitutional
sense. ndeed, PIuInLIIIs, boLI In LIeIr pupers und uL urgumenL, essenLIuIIy
LreuL LIIs premIse us seII-evIdenL, spendIng IILLIe LIme expIuInIng wIy LuIk
LIerupy Is properIy consIdered consLILuLIonuIIy proLecLed speecI ruLIer
LIun conducL. beIIeve u more Iur-reucIIng unuIysIs Is requIred becuuse,
us expIuIned In more deLuII injrc, it has never been deemed un
ubrIdgmenL oI Ireedom oI speecI or press Lo muke u course oI conducL
IIIeguI mereIy becuuse LIe conducL wus In purL InILIuLed, evIdenced, or
carried out by means of language, either spoken, written, or printed.
Gibone t. Empire Storce & Ice Co., 6 U.S. qqo, oz (1qqq).
Case 3:l3-cv-05038-FLW-LHG Document 57 Filed ll/08/l3 Page 29 of 66 PagelD: l489
$+

AccordIngIy, musL deLermIne wIeLIer SOCE counseIIng sIouId be
consIdered (I) u Iorm oI speecI, subjecL Lo consLILuLIonuI proLecLIons, (II)
mere conducL, subjecL Lo reusonubIe reguIuLIon by LIe sLuLe, or (III) some
combInuLIon oI boLI.
begIn wILI LIe sLuLuLory Irumework In wIIcI A;1 Is Iound:
Subtitle 1 of Title 45 of the New Jersey Statutes, governing Professions
And OccupuLIons ReguIuLed By SLuLe Bourds OI RegIsLruLIon And
Examination. N.J.S.A. 45:1-. ndeed, A;1 expressIy provIdes LIuL
the statute only applies to: A person wIo Is IIcensed Lo provIde
proIessIonuI counseIIng under TILIe q oI LIe RevIsed SLuLuLes, IncIudIng,
buL noL IImILed Lo, u psycIIuLrIsL, IIcensed prucLIcIng psycIoIogIsL, cerLIIIed
socIuI worker, IIcensed cIInIcuI socIuI worker, IIcensed socIuI worker,
IIcensed murrIuge und IumIIy LIerupIsL, cerLIIIed psycIounuIysL . . . . Id.
Because the statute only governs professional counseling by these, or
other similarly licensed individuals, I find it helpful to turn to the
sLuLuLes deIInIng LIe nuLure oI LIese IIcensed prucLIces Lo beLLer
understand the meaning of counseling as embodied in A3371.
SecLIon q:1qB-z oI LIe New Jersey SLuLuLe covers psycIoIogIsLs
and defines the practice of psychology as the rendering of professional
psycIoIogIcuI services, which in turn are defined as tIe uppIIcuLIon oI
psycIoIogIcuI prIncIpIes und procedures In LIe ussessmenL, counseIIng or
psycIoLIerupy oI IndIvIduuIs Ior LIe purposes oI promoLIng LIe opLImuI
deveIopmenL oI LIeIr poLenLIuI or umeIIoruLIng LIeIr personuIILy
dIsLurbunces und muIudjusLmenLs us munIIesLed In personuI und
Case 3:l3-cv-05038-FLW-LHG Document 57 Filed ll/08/l3 Page 30 of 66 PagelD: l490
$#

interpersonal situations. More simply put, this statute regulates licensed
psycIoIogIsLs application of psychological principles and procedures to
LIeIr cIIenLs. Becuuse LIe sLuLuLe LurgeLs LIe uppIIcuLIon oI prIncIpIes und
procedures, und noL uny speecI, vIew LIIs us u reguIuLIon oI LreuLmenL,
i.e., conducL. n LIuL sense, counseIIng, us IL urIses In LIe conLexL oI
psycIoIogy, Is IdenLIIIed us one oI LIe veIIcIes Ior psycIoIogIcuI LreuLmenL,
noL u Iorm oI speecI or expressIon. L wouId LIereIore uppeur LIuL LIe
meuns LIrougI wIIcI counseIIng Is currIed ouL by u psycIoIogIsLi.e.,
wIeLIer LIrougI LuIk LIerupy or ucLIonsIs ImmuLerIuI Ior LIe purposes oI
LIIs sLuLuLory deIInILIon; LIe reIevunL InquIry Is wIeLIer LIe psycIoIogIsL Is
uppIyIng psycIoIogIcuI prIncIpIes und procedures. SImIIur concIusIons cun
be druwn Irom oLIer New Jersey sLuLuLes reguIuLIng LIe proIessIons und
occupuLIons covered by A;1, us LIese sLuLuLes ubound wILI reIerences Lo
counseIIng us LIe uppIIcuLIon oI esLubIIsIed socIoIogIcuI or psycIoIogIcuI
meLIods, prIncIpIes, und procedures.
1;


CO
E.., N.J. SLuL. Ann. q:8B-2(b) (The practice of marriage and
IumIIy LIerupy consIsLs oI LIe uppIIcuLIon oI prIncIpIes, meLIods und
LecInIques oI counseIIng und psycIoLIerupy Ior LIe purpose oI resoIvIng
psycIoIogIcuI conIIIcL, modIIyIng percepLIon und beIuvIor, uILerIng oId
uLLILudes und esLubIIsIIng new ones In LIe ureu oI murrIuge und IumIIy
life.); id. uL q:1BB-3 (Clinical social work means the professional
uppIIcuLIon oI socIuI work meLIods und vuIues In LIe ussessmenL und
psycIoLIerupeuLIc counseIIng oI IndIvIduuIs, IumIIIes, or groups. CIInIcuI
socIuI work servIces sIuII IncIude, buL sIuII noL be IImILed Lo: ussessmenL;
psycIoLIerupy; cIIenL-centered advocacy; and consultation.); id.
(Psychotherapeutic counseling meuns LIe ongoIng InLerucLIon beLween u
socIuI worker und un IndIvIduuI, IumIIy or group Ior LIe purpose oI IeIpIng
Lo resoIve sympLoms oI menLuI dIsorder, psycIosocIuI sLress, reIuLIonsIIp
probIems or dIIIIcuILIes In copIng wILI LIe socIuI envIronmenL, LIrougI LIe
practice of psychotherapy.); id. (Social work counseling means the
proIessIonuI uppIIcuLIon oI socIuI work meLIods und vuIues In udvIsIng und
Case 3:l3-cv-05038-FLW-LHG Document 57 Filed ll/08/l3 Page 3l of 66 PagelD: l49l
$!

Beyond New Jerseys statutory scheme, commentators have also
Iong dIscussed psycIoIogIcuI counseIIng In u munner LIuL suggesLs
counseIIng Is LIerupy, und LIus u Iorm oI conducL. See, e.., NoLe,
Reulction oj Pscholoiccl Counselin cnd Pschothercp, 1 CoIum. .
Rev. 474, 495 n.2 (1951) (Counseling is a form of psychological aid
rendered by u psycIoIogIsL Lo un IndIvIduuI Ior socIuI-psycIoIogIcuI
adjustment problems. (cILIng SLurke R. HuLIuwuy, Some Considerctions
Relctite to Nondirectite Counselin cs Thercp, q J. CIIn. PsycIoIogy
zz6-z; (1qq8); W. C. MennInger, The Relctionship oj Cliniccl Pscholo
cnd Pschictr, Am. PsycIoIogIsL , q (1qo))). SImIIurIy, In dIscussIng
menLuI IeuILI LreuLmenL generuIIy, commenLuLors Iocus on descrIbIng LIe
services and procedures provided. See, e.., SLucey A. TovIno,
Conjlicts oj Interest in Medicine, Resecrch, cnd Lcu: A Compcrison, 11;
Penn. St. L. Rev. 1291, 1309 (2013) (Treatment may be defined as the

provIdIng guIdunce Lo IndIvIduuIs, IumIIIes or groups Ior LIe purpose oI
enIuncIng, proLecLIng or resLorIng LIe cupucILy Ior copIng wILI LIe socIuI
environment, exclusive of the practice of psychotherapy.); id. uL q:zD-
(AIcoIoI und drug counseIIng meuns LIe proIessIonuI uppIIcuLIon oI
uIcoIoI und drug counseIIng meLIods wIIcI ussIsL un IndIvIduuI or group
Lo deveIop un undersLundIng oI uIcoIoI und drug dependency probIems,
deIIne gouIs, und pIun ucLIon reIIecLIng LIe IndIvIduuI's or groups interest,
ubIIILIes und needs us uIIecLed by uIcoIoI und drug dependency
problems.); cj. id. uL q:q-5, (covering psychiatrists and defining the
practice of medicine and surgery to include the practice of any branch of
medIcIne undJor surgery, und uny meLIod oI LreuLmenL oI Iumun uIImenL,
disease, pain, injury, deformity, mental or physical condition); id. uL
q:11-23(b) (The practice of nursing as a registered professional nurse is
deIIned us dIugnosIng und LreuLIng Iumun responses Lo ucLuuI or poLenLIuI
pIysIcuI und emoLIonuI IeuILI probIems, LIrougI sucI servIces us
cuseIIndIng, IeuILI LeucIIng, IeuILI counseIIng, und provIsIon oI cure
supporLIve Lo or resLoruLIve oI IIIe und weII-beIng, und execuLIng medIcuI
regImens us prescrIbed by u IIcensed or oLIerwIse IeguIIy uuLIorIzed
physician or dentist.).
Case 3:l3-cv-05038-FLW-LHG Document 57 Filed ll/08/l3 Page 32 of 66 PagelD: l492
$$

provIsIon, coordInuLIon, or munugemenL oI IeuILI cure und reIuLed
servIces by one or more IeuILI cure provIders Lo u purLIcuIur IndIvIduuI.
TIe deIInILIon oI LreuLmenL Is bused on LIe concepL oI IeuILI cure, wIIcI
Ius been deIIned us cure, servIces, und procedures reIuLed Lo LIe IeuILI oI
u purLIcuIur IndIvIduuI. HeuILI cure Is IrequenLIy deIIned Lo IncIude
prevenLIve, dIugnosLIc, LIerupeuLIc, reIubIIILuLIve, muInLenunce, or
puIIIuLIve cure LIuL Is provIded Lo u purLIcuIur IndIvIduuI, us weII us
counseIIng, ussessmenLs, und procedures LIuL reIuLe Lo LIe pIysIcuI or
menLuI condILIon or IuncLIonuI sLuLus oI u purLIcuIur IndIvIduuI. AcLIvILIes
ure LIus cIussIIIed us LreuLmenL wIen LIey InvoIve u IeuILI cure servIce
provIded by u IeuILI cure provIder LIuL Is LuIIored Lo LIe specIIIc
prevenLIve, dIugnosLIc, LIerupeuLIc, or oLIer IeuILI cure needs oI u
particular individual.). While such commentary certainly is not
dIsposILIve, IL provIdes IurLIer supporL Ior LIe concepL LIuL counseIIng Is
more properIy undersLood us u meLIod oI LreuLmenL, noL speecI, sInce LIe
core cIurucLerIsLIc oI counseIIng Is noL LIuL IL muy be currIed ouL LIrougI
LuIkIng, buL ruLIer LIuL LIe counseIor uppIIes meLIods und procedures In u
LIerupeuLIc munner.
NoLubIy, by LIeIr own udmIssIon, PIuInLIIIs deIIne SOCE counseIIng
us beIng no different than any other form of mental health counseling,
involving the traditional psychodynamic process of looking at root causes,
cIIIdIood Issues, deveIopmenLuI IucLors, und oLIer LIIngs LIuL cuuse u
person Lo presenL wILI uII Lypes oI pIysIcuI, menLuI, emoLIonuI, or
psychological issues that in turn cause them distress. Decl. of Dr. Tara
Case 3:l3-cv-05038-FLW-LHG Document 57 Filed ll/08/l3 Page 33 of 66 PagelD: l493
$%

KIng, $ 1z. AccordIngIy, IInd LIuL LIe mere IucL LIuL counseIIng muy be
currIed ouL LIrougI LuIk LIerupy does noL uILer my IIndIng LIuL A;1
reguIuLes conducL und noL speecI.
AddILIonuI supporL Ior LIIs concIusIon comes Irom LIe NInLI
Circuits decision in Piclup.
18
AL LIe core oI Piclup Is LIe IoIdIng LIuL:
Becuuse SB 11;z reguIuLes onIy LreuLmenL, wIIIe IeuvIng
menLuI IeuILI provIders Iree Lo dIscuss und recommend, or
recommend uguInsL, SOCE, we concIude LIuL uny eIIecL IL
muy Iuve on Iree speecI InLeresLs Is mereIy IncIdenLuI.
TIereIore, we IoId LIuL SB 11;z Is subjecL Lo onIy ruLIonuI
basis review and must be upheld if it bear[s] . . . a ratIonuI
relationship to a legitimate state interest.

Piclup, ;z8 .d uL 1o6. TIe Piclup puneI IurLIer concIuded LIuL
CuIIIornIu Iud u ruLIonuI busIs Ior enucLIng SB 11;z, und LIus LIe sLuLuLe
wus consLILuLIonuI.
PIuInLIIIs dIspuLe LIe reIevuncy und persuusIveness oI Piclup,
conLendIng LIuL LIe puneI mIsuppIIed conLroIIIng NInLI CIrcuIL und
Supreme CourL precedenL wIen IL concIuded LIuL SB 11;z, u Iuw reguIuLIng
SOCE LIerupy, Is noL u reguIuLIon oI speecI, noLwILIsLundIng LIuL, us Iere,
therapy in California is carried out almost entirely through talk therapy.
PIuInLIIIs IurLIer urgue LIuL even II LIe Piclup puneI properIy concIuded
that a statute like A3371 regulates conduct with only an incidental
ImpucL on speecI, LIe puneI neverLIeIess erred wIen IL uppIIed ruLIonuI

CJ
AILIougI Iuve uIreudy noLed LIuL LIe Piclup cuse Is noL bIndIng, IL
Is sIgnIIIcunL In LIuL IL uddresses CuIIIornIu sLuLuLe SB 11;z, wIIcI Is
vIrLuuIIy IdenLIcuI Lo A;1, und uppeurs Lo be LIe onIy CourL oI AppeuIs
decIsIon unuIyzIng LIe reIuLIonsIIp beLween conducL und speecI In LIe
psycIoLIerupy conLexL. ndeed, boLI purLIes Iuve devoLed subsLunLIuI
urgumenL Lo LIe Piclup panels reasoning and its applicability to this case.
Case 3:l3-cv-05038-FLW-LHG Document 57 Filed ll/08/l3 Page 34 of 66 PagelD: l494
$&

busIs revIew ruLIer LIun LIe more demundIng OBrien LesL In upIoIdIng
LIe sLuLuLe. See United States v. OBrien, q1 U.S. 6; (1q68).
Iuve uIreudy IndependenLIy concIuded LIuL A;1 reguIuLes
conduct, not speech, and thus I need not devote much time to Plaintiffs
urgumenL LIuL LIe Piclup puneI, In ILs unuIysIs oI wIeLIer SOCE LIerupy Is
conducL, noL speecI, erred wIen IurmonIzIng the Ninth Circuits previous
IoIdIngs In Nctioncl Associction jor the Adtcncement oj Pschocnclsis
t. Cclijornic ocrd oj Pscholo, zz8 .d 1oq (qLI CIr. zooo)
(NAAP), and Concnt t. Wclters, oq .d 6zq (qLI CIr. zooz). NInLI
CIrcuIL Iuw Is noL bIndIng on LIIs CourL, und um under no obIIguLIon Lo
InLerpreL and resolve issues internal to that circuits jurisprudence. In re
Grossmans Inc., 6o; .d 11q, 1z1 (d CIr. zo1o). ndeed, In LIe ubsence
oI conLroIIIng uuLIorILy, um Iree Lo udopL wIuLever reusonIng IInd
persuasive from another jurisdictions decIsIon, wIIIe rejecLIng conLrury
reusonIng Irom LIuL sume jurIsdIcLIonregurdIess oI wIeLIer LIe
reusonIng reIy on Is bIndIng In LIuL jurIsdIcLIon. See crrios t. Attorne
Genercl oj the United Stctes, q .d z;z, z;; (d CIr. zoo) (IIndIng
persuusIve reusonIng oI dIssenLIng NInLI CIrcuIL opInIon wIIIe rejecLIng
majoritys reasoning from same opinion). n LIuL connecLIon, brIeIIy
IIgIIIgIL cerLuIn observuLIons und concIusIons In Piclup LIuL IInd
persuusIve Iere.
To begIn, LIe NInLI CIrcuIL, In Piclup, upLIy expIuIned LIuL LIe key
componenL oI psycIounuIysIs Is LIe LreuLmenL oI emoLIonuI suIIerIng und
depressIon, not speecI. TIuL psycIounuIysLs empIoy speecI Lo LreuL LIeIr
Case 3:l3-cv-05038-FLW-LHG Document 57 Filed ll/08/l3 Page 35 of 66 PagelD: l495
$'

cIIenLs does noL enLILIe LIem, or LIeIr proIessIon, Lo specIuI IrsL
Amendment protection. Piclup, ;z8 .d uL 1oz (quoLLIng NAAP,
TIus, LIe Piclup puneI endorsed LIe prIncIpIe that LIe communIcuLIon
LIuL occurs durIng psycIounuIysIs Is enLILIed Lo consLILuLIonuI proLecLIon,
but it is not immune from regulation. Id. However, LIe Piclup puneI
cIurIIIed LIuL LIe NInLI CIrcuIL had neither decided how much proLecLIon
LIuL communIcuLIon sIouId receIve nor consIdered wIeLIer LIe IeveI oI
protection might vary depending on the function of the communication.
Id.
TIe Piclup puneI distilled several principles applicable to the states
uuLIorILy und IImILs In reguIuLIng LIe LIerupIsL-cIIenL reIuLIonsIIp:
(1) docLor-puLIenL communIcuLIons cbout medIcuI LreuLmenL
receIve subsLunLIuI IrsL AmendmenL proLecLIon, buL LIe
governmenL Ius more Ieewuy Lo reguIuLe LIe conducL
necessury Lo udmInIsLerIng LreuLmenL ILseII; (z)
psycIoLIerupIsLs ure noL enLILIed Lo specIuI IrsL AmendmenL
proLecLIon mereIy becuuse LIe mecIunIsm used Lo deIIver
menLuI IeuILI LreuLmenL Is LIe spoken word; und ()
neverLIeIess, communIcuLIon LIuL occurs durIng
psycIoLIerupy does receIve some consLILuLIonuI proLecLIon,
buL IL Is noL Immune Irom reguIuLIon.

Id.
AILIougI Lo some exLenL PIuInLIIIs Luke Issue wILI uII LIree oI LIese
principles, the most salient to their challenge in this case is the second
LIuL psycIoLIerupIsLs ure noL enLILIed Lo specIuI IrsL AmendmenL
proLecLIon mereIy becuuse LIey use LIe spoken word us LIerupy. See, e..,
PI. RepIy uL z. TIIs urgumenL Is mereIy u coroIIury of Plaintiffs contention
that counseling, by its very nature, is constitutionally protecLed speecI.
Case 3:l3-cv-05038-FLW-LHG Document 57 Filed ll/08/l3 Page 36 of 66 PagelD: l496
$(

Iuve uIreudy expIuIned wIy LIIs Is noL so Ior LIe purposes oI A;1. TIe
sume ruLIonuIe exLends Lo wIy psycIoLIerupIsLs, und oLIer sImIIurIy
reguIuLed proIessIonuIs, ure noL enLILIed Lo bIunkeL IrsL AmendmenL
proLecLIon Ior uny und uII conversuLIons LIuL occur In LIe counseIor-cIIenL
reIuLIonsIIp. To be cIeur, LIe IIne oI demurcuLIon beLween conducL und
speecI Is wIeLIer LIe counseIor Is uLLempLIng Lo communIcuLe
InIormuLIon or u purLIcuIur vIewpoInL Lo LIe cIIenL or wIeLIer LIe
counseIor Is uLLempLIng Lo uppIy meLIods, prucLIces, und procedures Lo
brIng ubouL u cIunge In LIe cIIenLLIe Iormer Is speecI und LIe IuLLer Is
conducL.
However, LIere Is u more IundumenLuI probIem with Plaintiffs
urgumenL, becuuse Luken Lo ILs IogIcuI end, IL wouId meun LIuL cn
reguIuLIon oI proIessIonuI counseIIng necessurIIy ImpIIcuLes IundumenLuI
IrsL AmendmenL Iree speecI rIgILs, und LIereIore wouId need Lo
wILIsLund IeIgILened scruLIny Lo be permIssIbIe. SucI u resuIL runs
counLer Lo LIe IongsLundIng prIncIpIe LIuL u sLuLe generuIIy muy enucL Iuws
ruLIonuIIy reguIuLIng proIessIonuIs, IncIudIng LIose provIdIng medIcIne
und menLuI IeuILI servIces. See Wctson t. Mcrlcnd, z18 U.S. 1;, 1;6
(1910) (It is too well settled to require discussion at this day that the
poIIce power oI LIe sLuLes exLends Lo LIe reguIuLIon oI cerLuIn Lrudes und
callings, particularly those which closely concern the public health.); see
clso Dent t. West Virinic, 1zq U.S. 11q (188q) (IoIdIng LIuL sLuLes Iuve u
IegILImuLe InLeresL In reguIuLIng LIe medIcuI proIessIon through doctors
IIcensIng requIremenLs); Willicmson t. Lee Dpticcl oj Dllchomc, Inc., q8
Case 3:l3-cv-05038-FLW-LHG Document 57 Filed ll/08/l3 Page 37 of 66 PagelD: l497
$)

U.S. q8 (1q) (IIndIng IL consLILuLIonuIIy permIssIbIe Ior sLuLes Lo requIre
u prescrIpLIon Ior opLIcIuns Lo IIL or dupIIcuLe Ienses); Dhrclil t. Dhio
State Bar Assn, 436 U.S. 447, 460 (1978) (noting that the State bears a
specIuI responsIbIIILy Ior muInLuInIng sLundurds umong members oI LIe
licensed professions); Ectouh t. Albcno, 6; .zd 6;1, 6;6 (d CIr.
1982) (It is long settled that states have a legitimate interest in regulating
the practice of medicine . . . .); Lcne-Kessler v. Dept of Educ. of the
Stcte oj Neu Yorl, 1oq .d 1; (zd CIr. 1qq;) (IIndIng LIuL reguIuLIon oI
LIe medIcuI proIessIon Is uIIorded ruLIonuI busIs revIew); cj. Wcshinton t.
Gluclsber, z1 U.S. ;oz, ;1 (1qq;) (TIe SLuLe uIso Ius un InLeresL In
protecting the integrity and ethics of the medical profession.); Scmmon t.
Neu 1erse d. oj Med. Excminers, 66 .d 6q, 6q & nn. q-1o (d CIr.
1qq) (rejecLIng urgumenL LIuL cIoIce oI provIsIon oI medIcuI servIces Is u
consLILuLIonuIIy sIgnIIIcunL InLeresL LrIggerIng sLrIcL scruLIny revIew).
InuIIy, uddress Plaintiffs reliance on Wollschlceer t. Icrmer, In
wIIcI LIe courL Iound LIuL u IorIdu Iuw prevenLIng docLors Irom InquIrIng
into a patients gun ownership invaded the constitutionally protected
reuIm oI docLor-puLIenL communIcuLIons.
1q
88o . Supp. zd 1z1, 1z66-6;
(S.D. Iu. zo1z). TIe Wollschlceer courL reIIed on LIe proposILIon LIuL
[c]ourts have recognized that the free flow oj truthjul, non-mislecdin

CZ
TIe Wollschlceer court relied on evidence that as part of the
prucLIce oI prevenLIve medIcIne, prucLILIoners rouLIneIy usk und counseI
puLIenLs ubout a number of potential health and safety risks, including
firearms, and that the Florida law interfere[d] in the doctor-puLIenL
reIuLIonsIIp und Iu|d| resuILed In dImInIsIed eIIIcucy oI |pIysIcIuns|
practice of preventive medical care. 88o . Supp. zd uL 1z;.
Case 3:l3-cv-05038-FLW-LHG Document 57 Filed ll/08/l3 Page 38 of 66 PagelD: l498
$*

injormction Is crILIcuI wILIIn LIe docLor-puLIenL reIuLIonsIIp, id. uL 1z66,
und cILed Trcmmel t. United Stctes, qq U.S. qo, 1 (1q8o) ([T]he
pIysIcIun musL know uII LIuL u puLIenL cun urLIcuIuLe In order Lo IdenLIIy
und Lo LreuL dIseuse; burrIers Lo IuII dIscIosure wouId ImpuIr dIugnosIs und
treatment.), Concnt, 309 F.3d at 636 (An integral component of the
prucLIce oI medIcIne Is LIe communIcuLIon beLween u docLor und u puLIenL.
Physicians must be able to speak frankly and openly to patients.), and
Sorrell t. IMS Heclth, Inc., 131 S.Ct. 2653, 2664 (2011) (A consumers
concern Ior LIe Iree IIow oI commercIuI speecI oILen muy be Iur keener
LIun IIs concern Ior urgenL poIILIcuI dIuIogue. . . . TIuL reuIILy Ius greuL
reIevunce In LIe IIeIds oI medIcIne und pubIIc IeuILI, wIere InIormuLIon
can save lives.). n conLrusL Iere, A;1 does noL seek Lo reguIuLe LIe
conveyIng oI InIormuLIon, onIy LIe uppIIcuLIon oI u purLIcuIur LIerupeuLIc
meLIod. TIus, Wollschlceer Is InupposILe.
zo


ID
urLIermore, Iere, LIe SLuLe Ius deLermIned LIuL LIe poLenLIuI
Iurm Lo mInors Irom SOCE, Iowever sIIgIL, Is suIIIcIenL Lo ouLweIgI uny
poLenLIuI beneIILs. n LIuL connecLIon, noLe LIuL PIuInLIIIs LIemseIves
ucknowIedge LIuL LIere Is u deurLI oI non-unecdoLuI evIdence Lo supporL
LIe success ruLe, und beneIILs oI SOCE. TIus, unIIke LIe IorIdu Iuw
precIudIng docLors Irom uscerLuInIng medIcuIIy reIevunL InIormuLIon Irom
LIeIr puLIenLs, LIe cIrcumsLunces Iere ure more ukIn Lo u sLuLe IIndIng
pIysIcIun ussIsLed suIcIde Lo be IurmIuI und enucLIng u Iuw Lo proIIbIL ILs
prucLIce. Becuuse LIere Is no consLILuLIonuI rIgIL Lo prucLIce u purLIcuIur
type of medical or mental health treatment, A3371s prohibition of a
purLIcuIur Iorm oI counseIIng In wIIcI counseIors uppIy LIerupeuLIc
prIncIpIes und procedures sImIIurIy does noL ImpIIcuLe IundumenLuI
consLILuLIonuI rIgILs. See Wcshinton, z1 U.S. uL ;z8 ([T]he asserted
right to assistance in committing suicIde Is noL u IundumenLuI IIberLy
interest protected by the Due Process Clause.); Scmmon t. Neu 1erse
d. oj Med. Excminers, 66 .d 6q, 6q & nn.q-1o (d CIr. 1qq)
(rejecLIng urgumenL LIuL cIoIce oI provIsIon oI medIcuI servIces Is u
consLILuLIonuIIy sIgnIIIcunL InLeresL LrIggerIng sLrIcL scruLIny revIew).
Case 3:l3-cv-05038-FLW-LHG Document 57 Filed ll/08/l3 Page 39 of 66 PagelD: l499
%+

or LIe IoregoIng reusons, concIude LIuL A;1 on ILs Iuce does
not target speech, and counseling is not entitled to special constitutional
proLecLIon mereIy becuuse IL Is prImurIIy currIed ouL LIrougI LuIk LIerupy.
TIus, IInd LIuL A;1 does noL seek Lo reguIuLe speecI; ruLIer LIe sLuLuLe
reguIuLes u purLIcuIur Lype oI conducL, SOCE counseIIng.
46 V>?>I <= (R;H7@9D *87@<98I 48F@F *>?@>A )QQI@>F
HuvIng deLermIned LIuL A;1 reguIuLes conducL, musL sLIII
deLermIne II LIe sLuLuLe currIes wILI IL uny IncIdenLuI eIIecL on speecI.
PIuInLIIIs urgue LIuL becuuse LIe conducL beIng reguIuLed by A;1SOCE
counseIIngIs currIed ouL enLIreIy LIrougI speecI, LIe sLuLuLe necessurIIy
Ius, uL LIe very IeusL, un IncIdenLuI eIIecL on speecI und LIus, u IeIgILened
IeveI oI judIcIuI scruLIny uppIIes.
z1
See PI. RepIy uL 8. n LIuL connecLIon,
Plaintiffs assert that under Third Circuit precedent, a law that burdens
expression but is content neutral must be analyzed under the
intermediate scrutiny standard enunciated by the Supreme Court in
OBrien. See Conchctc Inc. t. Miller, q8 .d z8, z6; (d CIr. zoo6);

z1
PIuInLIIIs sImIIurIy cIuIIenge LIe Piclup panels conclusion that the
CuIIIornIu Iuw, SB 11;z, needed onIy Lo survIve ruLIonuI busIs revIew.
AccordIng Lo PIuInLIIIs, LIe Piclup courL erred by noL uppIyIng OBriens
intermediate scrutiny test after finding that any effect [SB 1172] may have
on free speech interests is merely incidental. Piclup, ;z8 .d uL 1o6.
IkewIse, PIuInLIIIs conLend LIuL LIuL LIe SLuLe Iere uIso conceded In ILs
papers that A3371 has an incidental burden on speech. Plaintiffs
urgumenL Is mIspIuced; neILIer LIe Piclup puneI, In connecLIon wILI SB
11;z, nor LIe SLuLe, In connecLIon wILI A;1, expressIy ucknowIedged LIuL
LIe respecLIve sLuLuLes ucLuuIIy Iud un eIIecL on speecI. RuLIer, boLI LIe
NInLI CIrcuIL und LIe SLuLe noLed LIuL ij LIere Is un eIIecL on speecI, IL Is
no more LIun IncIdenLuI. See id.; DeI. Opp. uL 1. n uny evenL, us
expIuIned by LIe unuIysIs LIuL IoIIows, IInd LIuL A;1 does noL Iuve un
eIIecL on speecI LIuL wouId LrIgger consLILuLIonuI concerns.
Case 3:l3-cv-05038-FLW-LHG Document 57 Filed ll/08/l3 Page 40 of 66 PagelD: l500
%#

crtnicli t. Vopper, zoo .d 1oq, 1z1 (d CIr. 1qqq) affd, z U.S. 1q
(zoo1) (noLIng LIuL OBrien sLundurd uppIIes Lo reguIuLIons governIng
conducL LIuL IncIdenLuIIy resLrIcL expressIve beIuvIor). n response,
DeIendunLs urgue LIuL LIe mere IucL LIuL LIe conducL In quesLIon Iere Is
currIed ouL LIrougI spoken words Is noL, by ILseII, suIIIcIenL Lo sIow LIuL
LIe sLuLuLe Ius un IncIdenLuI burden on speecI; ruLIer, PIuInLIIIs musL uIso
sIow LIuL LIeIr conducL Is InIerenLIy expressIve, wIIcI LIey IuII Lo do.
n OBrien, LIe Supreme CourL uddressed u IederuI Iuw LIuL mude IL
u crImInuI oIIense Lo Iorge, uILer, knowIngIy desLroy, knowIngIy muLIIuLe,
or In uny munner cIunge u druIL curd. OBrien, q1 U.S. uL ;o. TIe
peLILIoner Iud been convIcLed Ior burnIng IIs druIL curd on LIe sLeps oI u
courL Iouse, und uppeuIed IIs convIcLIon on LIe grounds LIuL LIe Iuw
unconsLILuLIonuIIy ubrIdged IIs Ireedom oI speecI. Id. As un InILIuI
matter, the Supreme Court found that the statute on ILs Iuce deuIs wILI
conducL IuvIng no connecLIon wILI speecI. L proIIbILs LIe knowIng
desLrucLIon oI cerLIIIcuLes Issued by LIe SeIecLIve ServIce SysLem, und LIere
Is noLIIng necessurIIy expressive about such conduct. Id. uL ;.
However, LIe OBrien courL recognIzed LIuL LIe peLILIoner Iud burned IIs
druIL curd Lo proLesL LIe VIeLnum Wur, und uccordIngIy, deLermIned LIuL
this communicctite element in OBriens conduct [was] sufficienL Lo brIng
into play the First Amendment. Id. uL ;6 (empIusIs udded). TIe
Supreme CourL reusoned LIuL LIe IederuI Iuw wus consLILuLIonuIIy
permIssIbIe, noLwILIsLundIng ILs IncIdenLuI eIIecL on IndIvIduuIs IIke LIe
petitioner, explaining that when speech and nonspeech elements are
Case 3:l3-cv-05038-FLW-LHG Document 57 Filed ll/08/l3 Page 4l of 66 PagelD: l50l
%!

combIned In LIe sume course oI conducL, u suIIIcIenLIy ImporLunL
governmenLuI InLeresL In reguIuLIng LIe nonspeecI eIemenL cun jusLIIy
incidental limitations on First Amendment freedoms.
zz
Id.
TIus, LIe InquIry InLo wIeLIer OBriens intermediate scrutiny
revIew Is upproprIuLe Lurns on wIeLIer LIe uIIeged conducL IuIIs wILIIn LIe
scope of the First Amendments right to freedom of expression, und
exLends only to conduct that is intended to be communicative and that, in
conLexL, wouId reusonubIy be undersLood by LIe vIewer Lo be
communIcuLIve |us| |s|ymboIIc expressIon, oLIerwIse known us expressIve
conduct. crtnicli, zoo .d uL 1z1 (InLernuI quoLuLIon murks omILLed)
(quoLIng Clcrl t. Communit jor Crectite Non-Violence, q68 U.S. z88,
zq (1q8q)).
On LIe oLIer Iund, us Iuve noLed IereIn, it has never been
deemed un ubrIdgmenL oI Ireedom oI speecI or press Lo muke u course oI
conducL IIIeguI mereIy becuuse LIe conducL wus In purL InILIuLed,
evIdenced, or currIed ouL by meuns oI Iunguuge, eILIer spoken, wrILLen, or
printed. Gibone, 6 U.S. uL oz. Similarly, the State does not lose its
power Lo reguIuLe commercIuI ucLIvILy deemed IurmIuI Lo LIe pubIIc
whenever speech is a component of that activity. Dhrclil, q6 U.S. uL
q6. TIus, In deLermInIng wIeLIer conducL Is deservIng oI IrsL
AmendmenL speech protection, the focus is on the nature of [the] activity,

zz
UILImuLeIy, LIe OBrien court found that the governments interest
In prevenLIng LIe desLrucLIon oI druIL curds wus suIIIcIenLIy ImporLunL, und
unreIuLed Lo LIe suppressIon oI Iree expressIon, Lo jusLIIy LIe IederuI Iuw.
OBrien, q1 U.S. uL ;6.
Case 3:l3-cv-05038-FLW-LHG Document 57 Filed ll/08/l3 Page 42 of 66 PagelD: l502
%$

combIned wILI LIe IucLuuI conLexL und envIronmenL In wIIcI IL wus
undertaken, to determine whether activity was sufficiently Imbued wILI
eIemenLs oI communIcuLIon Lo IuII wILIIn LIe scope oI LIe IrsL und
Fourteenth Amendments. Spence t. Stcte oj Wcshinton, q18 U.S. qo,
qoq-1o (1q;q). n mukIng LIuL connecLIon, LIe Supreme CourL Ius
rejected the view that conduct can be labeled speech whenever the
person engugIng In LIe conducL InLends LIereby Lo express un Ideu |und
Ius| exLended IrsL AmendmenL proLecLIon onIy Lo conducL LIuL Is
inherentl expressite. Rumsjeld t. Iorum jor Accdemic & Institutioncl
Rihts, Inc., q; U.S. q;, 6-66 (zoo6) (oLIer InLernuI quoLuLIon murks
omILLed). TIus, conLrury to Plaintiffs argument, the mere IucL LIuL
counseIIng Is currIed ouL LIrougI speecI Is noL uIone suIIIcIenL Lo sIow
LIuL A;1 Ius un IncIdenLuI eIIecL on speecI. PIuInLIIIs musL uIso sIow
LIuL counseIIng Is InIerenLIy expressIve conducLi.e., LIuL LuIk LIerupy (1)
Is InLended Lo be communIcuLIve, und (z) wouId be undersLood us sucI by
LIeIr cIIenLs.
z
PIuInLIIIs IuII Lo muke sucI u sIowIng.
PIuInLIIIs LIemseIves dIscuss SOCE us u Lype oI LIerupy, InLended Lo
brIng ubouL some Iorm oI cIunge In LIe cIIenL. See, e.., DecI. oI Dr. Turu
KIng, $ 1z (dIscussIng SOCE us u Iorm oI counseIIng InvoIvIng LIe
traditional psychodynamic process to effect change in the clients
sexual orientation); Decl. of Dr. Ron Newman, 8 (I also believe that

IY
TIe TIIrd CIrcuIL Ius expIuIned LIuL PIuInLIIIs Iuve LIe burden oI
sIowIng wIeLIer conducL Is expressIve. See Troster t. Pennsltcnic Stcte
Dept of Corr., 6 .d 1o86, 1oqo (d CIr. 1qq).

Case 3:l3-cv-05038-FLW-LHG Document 57 Filed ll/08/l3 Page 43 of 66 PagelD: l503
%%

cIunge Is possIbIe und Iuve personuIIy counseIed IndIvIduuIs wIo Iuve
successIuIIy reduced or eIImInuLed LIeIr unwunLed sume-sex uLLrucLIons,
beIuvIors, or Identity.); Decl. of Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, 11 (discussing
SOCE as a means to eliminate or reduce a clients unwanted same-sex
sexuuI uLLrucLIons).
zq
Here, Plaintiffs explanation of their roles und
boundurIes In LIe counseIor-cIIenL reIuLIonsIIp Ieuds Lo LIe concIusIon LIuL
counseling is not conduct that is intended to be communicative because
the counselors goal is to apply traditional mental health treatment
meLIods und prIncIpIes to effect a change in the clients sexual orientation.
SOCE counseIIng Is noL u meuns oI communIcuLIon Lo express uny
purLIcuIur vIewpoInL; ruLIer IL Is u meuns oI LreuLmenL InLended Lo brIng
ubouL u cIunge In LIe menLuI IeuILI und psycIe oI LIe cIIenL wIo desIres
und seeks ouL sucI u cIunge. LIereIore do noL IInd LIuL SOCE
counseIIng, us perIormed by PIuInLIIIs, suLIsIIes LIe crtnicli requIremenL
oI conducL LIuL Is InLended Lo be communIcuLIve.
Moreover, SOCE counseIIng Is noL IIke oLIer Iorms oI conducL
traditionally found to be inherently expressive, such as the burnIng oI u
druIL curd In OBrien or LIe burnIng oI u IIug In Texcs t. 1ohnson, qq1 U.S.

zq
Moreover, PIuInLIIIs repeuLedIy poInL ouL LIuL LIey onIy enguge In SOCE
wILI cIIenLs wIo upproucI LIem seekIng sucI u cIunge; Indeed, PIuInLIIIs
expIuIn LIuL IL wouId be uneLIIcuI Ior LIem Lo Lry Lo Impose LIeIr own
personuI vIewpoInL on u cIIenL. See, e.., DecI. of Dr. Tara King, 10 (It is
uneLIIcuI Lo uLLempL Lo Impose uny kInd oI IdeoIogy or Irumework on u
cIIenL In counseIIng, so do noL even ruIse SOCE dIscussIons unIess u
client wants to engage in such counseling.); id., $$ 1z-1; DecI. oI Dr.
JosepI NIcoIosI, $$ ;-8.

Case 3:l3-cv-05038-FLW-LHG Document 57 Filed ll/08/l3 Page 44 of 66 PagelD: l504
%&

q;, qo-qo6 (1q8q).
z
n LIese cuses, LIere wus u cIeur dIsLIncLIon
beLween LIe conducL LIuL LIe sLuLuLe sougIL Lo govern und LIe expressIve
conducL IncIdenLuIIy uIIecLed by LIe sLuLuLe. Here, by conLrusL, PIuInLIIIs
Iuve IdenLIIIed no conducL, IeL uIone uny expressIve conducL, oLIer LIun
that covered by A3371. Thus, Plaintiffs claim is more appropriately
governed by Gibone, wIIcI uIIords no proLecLIon Lo speecI LIuL Is
InLegruIIy purL oI vuIIdIy proIIbILed conducL. Gibone, 336 U.S. at 498 (It
rureIy Ius been suggesLed LIuL LIe consLILuLIonuI Ireedom Ior speecI und
press exLends ILs ImmunILy Lo speecI or wrILIng used us un InLegruI purL oI

IX
n crtnicli t. Vopper, zoo .d uL 1zo, affd, z U.S. 1q (zoo1),
LIe TIIrd CIrcuIL provIded cILed severuI exumpIes oI Supreme CourL cuses
uddressIng expressIve conducL. See crnes t. Glen Thectre, Inc., o1 U.S.
6o (1qq1) (reversIng cIrcuIL courL decIsIon IIndIng ndIunu sLuLuLe
proIIbILIng compIeLe nudILy In pubIIc pIuces noL un unconsLILuLIonuI
ubrIdgemenL oI IrsL AmendmenL speecI rIgILs reIuLed Lo exoLIc duncIng);
Arccrc t. Cloud ools, Inc., q;8 U.S. 6q;, ;o (1q86) (IoIdIng LIuL
unlike the symbolic draft card burning in D'rien, LIe sexuuI ucLIvILy
currIed on In LIIs cuse munIIesLs ubsoIuLeIy no eIemenL oI proLecLed
expression and thus statute authorizing closure of premises did not
ImpIIcuLe IrsL AmendmenL concerns.); United Stctes t. Albertini, q;z
U.S. 6; (1q8) (IIndIng IederuI sLuLuLe mukIng IL unIuwIuI Lo reenLer u
mIIILury buse uILer IuvIng been burred by LIe commundIng oIIIcer dId noL
ImpIIcuLe IrsL AmendmenL concerns becuuse the First Amendment does
noL bur uppIIcuLIon oI u neuLruI reguIuLIon LIuL IncIdenLuIIy burdens
speecI mereIy becuuse u purLy conLends LIuL uIIowIng un excepLIon In LIe
particular case will not threaten important government interest); Clcrl t.
Communit jor Crectite Non-Violence, q68 U.S. z88, zq-zqq (1q8q)
(ussumIng wILIouL decIdIng LIuL overnIgIL cumpIng In connecLIon wILI u
demonsLruLIon wus expressIve conducL, buL neverLIeIess concIudIng LIuL
NuLIonuI Purk ServIce reguIuLIon proIIbILIng cumpIng In uIuyeLLe Purk
dId noL vIoIuLe LIe IrsL AmendmenL); R.A.V. t. Cit oj St. Pcul, o U.S.
;; (1qqz) (MInnesoLu sLuLuLe proIIbILIng dIspIuy oI cerLuIn objecLs,
IncIudIng u burnIng cross or NuzI swusLIku, ImproperIy reguIuLed
expressIve conducL und vIoIuLed LIe IrsL AmendmenL becuuse IL wus noL
nurrowIy LuIIored). SIgnIIIcunLIy, uII oI LIese cuses concern expressIve
conducL dIIIerenL LIun LIe ucLuuI conducL LIe sLuLuLe or reguIuLIon seeks Lo
proIIbIL.
Case 3:l3-cv-05038-FLW-LHG Document 57 Filed ll/08/l3 Page 45 of 66 PagelD: l505
%'

conducL In vIoIuLIon oI u vuIId crImInuI sLuLuLe. We rejecL LIe conLenLIon
now.); Rumsjeld, 547 U.S. at 66 (If combining speech and conduct were
enougI Lo creuLe expressIve conducL, u reguIuLed purLy couId uIwuys
transform conduct into speech simply by talking about it. For instance, if
un IndIvIduuI unnounces LIuL Ie InLends Lo express IIs dIsupprovuI oI LIe
nLernuI Revenue ServIce by reIusIng Lo puy IIs Income Luxes, we wouId
Iuve Lo uppIy OBrien Lo deLermIne wIeLIer LIe Tux Code vIoIuLes LIe IrsL
AmendmenL. NeILIer OBrien nor its progeny supports such a result.);
United Stctes t. Schicto, 504 F.2d 1, 21 n.9 (3d Cir. 1974) (Freedom of
expressIon cun be suppressed II, und Lo LIe exLenL LIuL, IL Is so brIguded
wILI IIIeguI ucLIon us Lo be un Insepuruble part of it.). SImIIurIy, IInd LIuL
PIuInLIIIs Iuve noL sIown LIuL A;1 Ius un IncIdenLuI eIIecL on expressIve
conducL, und LIus, OBrien does not govern Plaintiffs challenge to A3371.
nsLeud, uppIy ruLIonuI busIs revIew. See Scmmon, 66 .d uL 6q &
nn.q-1o.
Where rational basis review is approprIuLe, u sLuLuLe wILIsLunds u
subsLunLIve due process cIuIIenge II LIe sLuLe IdenLIIIes u IegILImuLe sLuLe
InLeresL LIuL LIe IegIsIuLure ruLIonuIIy couId concIude wus served by LIe
statute.
z6
Scmmon, 66 .d uL 6qq; see Scctone t. Pc. Stcte Police, o1
F. Appx 179, 181 (3d Cir. 2012). The law need not be in every respect
consIsLenL wILI ILs uIms Lo be consLILuLIonuI. L Is enougI LIuL LIere Is un
evII uL Iund Ior correcLIon, und LIuL IL mIgIL be LIougIL LIuL LIe purLIcuIur

IQ
Becuuse Iuve rejecLed Plaintiffs First Amendment free speech
cIuIIenge, my unuIysIs Iere Lurns on wIeLIer LIere Is uny subsLunLIve due
process vIoIuLIon.
Case 3:l3-cv-05038-FLW-LHG Document 57 Filed ll/08/l3 Page 46 of 66 PagelD: l506
%(

legislative measure was a rational way to correct it. Roin t. ensclem
Tounship, 616 .zd 68o, 68q (d CIr. 1q8o), cert. denied, qo U.S. 1ozq
(1q81) (quoLIng Willicmson t. Lee Dpticcl oj Dllchomc, Inc., q8 U.S.
q8, q8;-88 (1q)); see clso Midniht Sessions, Ltd. t. Cit oj
Philcdelphic, qq .zd 66;, 68z (d CIr. 1qq1), cert. denied, o U.S. q8q
(1qqz); Mcbe ride & Shore, Inc. t. Schoch, 666 .d 86z, 8;6 (d CIr.
zo1z). WIen IegIsIuLIon Is beIng LesLed under rutional basis review, those
cIuIIengIng LIe IegIsIuLIve judgmenL musL convInce LIe courL LIuL LIe
IegIsIuLIve IucLs on wIIcI LIe cIussIIIcuLIon |oI LIe sLuLuLe| Is uppurenLIy
bused couId noL reusonubIy be conceIved us Lrue by LIe governmenLuI
decIsIonmuker.
z;
Id. (quoLIng Vcnce t. rcdle, qqo U.S. q, 111 (1q;q));
see clso Pcce Resources, Inc. t. Shreusbur Tounship, 8o8 .zd 1oz,
1oq- (d CIr.), cert. denied, 482 U.S. 906 (1987). Indeed, those
uLLuckIng LIe ruLIonuIILy oI LIe IegIsIuLIve cIussIIIcution have the burden to
neguL|e| every conceIvubIe busIs wIIcI mIgIL supporL IL. ICC t. ecch
Communicctions, Inc., o8 U.S. o;, 1 (1qq) (quoLIng Lehnhcusen t.

IO
TIe TIIrd CIrcuIL Ius repeuLedIy cuuLIoned LIuL u courL engugIng In
ruLIonuI busIs revIew Is noL enLILIed

Lo second guess LIe IegIsIuLure on LIe IucLuuI ussumpLIons or
poIIcy consIderuLIons underIyIng LIe sLuLuLe. I LIe
IegIsIuLure Ius ussumed LIuL peopIe wIII reucL Lo LIe sLuLuLe
In u gIven wuy or LIuL IL wIII serve LIe desIred gouI, LIe courL
Is noL uuLIorIzed Lo deLermIne wIeLIer peopIe Iuve reucLed
In LIe wuy predIcLed or wIeLIer LIe desIred gouI Ius been
served.

Scmmon, 66 F.3d at 645. Thus, the sole question is whether the
IegIsIuLure ruLIonuIIy mIgIL Iuve beIIeved LIe predIcLed reucLIon wouId
occur or that the desired end would be served. Scctone, 501 F. Appx at
181.
Case 3:l3-cv-05038-FLW-LHG Document 57 Filed ll/08/l3 Page 47 of 66 PagelD: l507
%)

Lcle Shore Auto Pcrts Co., q1o U.S. 6, 6q (1q;)); see, e.., Heller t.
Doe, oq U.S. 1z, 1q-zo (1qq) (IIndIng LIuL Iuws scruLInIzed under
rational basis review are accorded a strong presumption of validity).
OrdInurIIy, LIuL burden Is neurIy insurmountable. [C]ourts are compelled
under ruLIonuI-basis review to accept a legislatures generuIIzuLIons even
wIen LIere Is un ImperIecL IIL beLween meuns und ends. A cIussIIIcuLIon
does noL IuII ruLIonuI busIs revIew becuuse IL Is noL mude wILI
mathematical nicety or because in practice it results in some inequality.
Heller, oq U.S. uL z1 (InLernuI quoLuLIon murks und cILuLIons omILLed);
N.J. Retail Merchs. Assn v. Sidamon-Eristojj, 66q .d ;q, qq (d CIr.
zo1z).
mporLunLIy, u sLuLe need noL provIde jusLIIIcuLIon or ruLIonuIe Ior
ILs IegIsIuLIve decIsIon. ndeed, LIe Supreme CourL Ius IeId LIuL
legislative choice[s] [are] not subject to court factfinding and may be
based on rational speculation unsupported by evidence or empirical data.
ecch Communicctions, o8 U.S. uL 1; N.1. Retcil Merchs., 66q .d uL
qq. L Is noL LIe courLs role, under a rational basis review, to judge the
wisdom, fairness, or logic of legislative choices. Pcrler t. Conuc, 81
.d 1q8, zoz (d CIr. zooq) (quoLIng Beach Commcns, o8 U.S. uL 1).
NeverLIeIess, LIe courL musL sLIII deLermIne whether circumstances
vIndIcuLe LIe cIuIIenged reguIuLIon us u reusonubIe exerLIon oI
governmental authority or condemn it as arbitrary or discriminatory.
Nebbic t. Neu Yorl, zq1 U.S. oz, 6 (1qq).
Case 3:l3-cv-05038-FLW-LHG Document 57 Filed ll/08/l3 Page 48 of 66 PagelD: l508
%*

Here, the States professed interest is in protecting mInors Irom
proIessIonuI counseIIng IL deems IurmIuI. L Is beyond debuLe LIuL LIe
SLuLe Ius un InLeresL In proLecLIng vuInerubIe groups, Wcshinton, z1
U.S. uL ;1, wIIcI IncIudes mInors. Americcn Citil Liberties Union t.
Ashcrojt, zz .d zqo, z1 (d CIr. zoo) ([T]here is a compelling
InLeresL In proLecLIng LIe pIysIcuI und psycIoIogIcuI weII-being of minors.
(QuoLIng Sable Commcn of California, Inc. v. F.C.C., qqz U.S. 11, 1z6
(1q8q).
z8
A;1 uccompIIsIes LIIs by ensurIng LIuL IIcensed proIessIonuIs
wIo enguge In counseIIng do noL perIorm SOCE on mInors. ConLrury Lo
Plaintiffs arguments, it is immaterial whether there is any actual evidence
oI Iurm Irom SOCE; Ior A;1 Lo Iuve u ruLIonuI busIs, IL Is suIIIcIenL LIuL
LIe IegIsIuLure couId reusonubIy beIIeve LIuL SOCE conveyed no beneIILs
und poLenLIuIIy cuused Iurm Lo mInors. ecch Communicctions, o8 U.S.
uL 1. TIe IegIsIuLIve IIndIngs seL IorLI In A;1 supporL sucI u
concIusIon. See enercll N.J.S.A. q:1-q. or exumpIe, LIe IegIsIuLure
Iound:
Being lesbian, gay, or bisexual is not a disease, disorder,
illness, deficiency, or shortcoming;
[S]exual orIenLuLIon cIunge eIIorLs cun pose crILIcuI
health risks to lesbian, gay, and bisexual people;
[T]he [American Psychological Association] advises
purenLs, guurdIuns, young peopIe, und LIeIr IumIIIes Lo
uvoId sexuuI orIenLuLIon cIunge eIIorLs LIuL porLruy
IomosexuuIILy us u menLuI IIIness or deveIopmenLuI
disorder;

z8
Beyond LIuL, LIe Supreme CourL Ius recognIzed LIuL [t]he mental
IeuILI oI our cILIzenry, no Iess LIun ILs pIysIcuI IeuILI, Is u pubIIc good oI
transcendent importance, 1cjjee t. Redmond, 18 U.S. 1, 11 (1qq6), und
LIuL states also have un InLeresL In proLecLIng LIe InLegrILy und eLIIcs oI
the medical profession. Wcshinton t. Gluclsber, z1 U.S. uL ;1.
Case 3:l3-cv-05038-FLW-LHG Document 57 Filed ll/08/l3 Page 49 of 66 PagelD: l509
&+

The American Academy of Pediatrics in 1993 published
an article in its journal, Pediatrics, stating: Therapy
dIrecLed uL specIIIcuIIy cIungIng sexuuI orIenLuLIon Is
conLruIndIcuLed, sInce IL cun provoke guIIL und unxIeLy
wIIIe IuvIng IILLIe or no poLenLIuI Ior ucIIevIng cIunges
in orientation; and
The American Academy of Child and Adolescent
PsycIIuLry In zo1z pubIIsIed un urLIcIe In ILs journuI,
JournuI oI LIe AmerIcun Acudemy oI CIIId und
Adolescent Psychiatry, stating: Clinicians should be
uwure LIuL LIere Is no evIdence LIuL sexuuI orIenLuLIon
cun be uILered LIrougI LIerupy, und LIuL uLLempLs Lo do
so may be harmful . . . .

Id. It is also immaterial that some of the legislatures IIndIngs und
decIuruLIons uddress SOCE wILI respecL Lo uduILs, us opposed Lo mInors.
L Is cerLuInIy ruLIonuI Ior LIe IegIsIuLure Lo beIIeve LIuL LIe poLenLIuI Iurms
LIuL uLLend SOCE Ior uduILs exIsL uL IeusL equuIIy Ior mInors. See Scctone,
o1 ed. Appx. at 181 (explaining the rational basis inquiry as whether the
IegIsIuLure ruLIonuIIy mIgIL Iuve beIIeved LIe predIcLed reucLIon wouId
occur or that the desired end would be served). Finally, because in
uppIyIng LIe ruLIonuI busIs LesL reIy onIy on LIe legislatures stated
IIndIngs Lo deLermIne wIeLIer LIere Is u ruLIonuI busIs Ior A;1Indeed,
need noL even reIy on LIose IIndIngs, us Iong us cun conceIve oI some
ruLIonuI busIs Ior LIe sLuLuLePlaintiffs arguments attacking the validity
oI LIe sLudIes und reporLs reIIed on by LIe IegIsIuLure curry no weIgIL In
LIe unuIysIs.
zq
See N.1. Retcil Merchs., 66q .d uL qq; ecch
Communicctions, o8 U.S. uL 1.

zq
or LIuL reuson, need noL consIder LIe uddILIonuI evIdenLIury
submIssIons IIIed by PIuInLIIIs und nLervenor, und LIus need noL ruIe on
LIeIr udmIssIbIIILy. See suprc, I.n. 1.
Case 3:l3-cv-05038-FLW-LHG Document 57 Filed ll/08/l3 Page 50 of 66 PagelD: l5l0
&#

Similarly, A3371s prohibition on the practice of SOCE counseling is
ruLIonuIIy reIuLed Lo LIe Iurm LIe sLuLuLe seeks Lo prevenL. A;1 LurgeLs
onIy IIcensed proIessIonuIs wIo enguge In proIessIonuI counseIIng oI
mInors, und resLrIcLs LIem Irom perIormIng LIe specIIIc Lype oI conducL
SOCE counseIIngLIe IegIsIuLure deemed IurmIuI. TIIs nexus Is more
LIun udequuLe Lo suLIsIy ruLIonuI busIs revIew. Id.
n sum, concIude LIuL: (1) A;1 on ILs Iuce does noL LurgeL speecI;
(2) counseling is not constitutIonuIIy proLecLed speecI mereIy becuuse IL
Is prImurIIy currIed ouL LIrougI LuIk LIerupy; () no speecI or expressIve
conduct is incidentally burdened by A3371s prohibition, and thus (4)
rational basis review is appropriate for adjudging the statutes
consLILuLIonuIILy, wIIcI Is eusIIy suLIsIIed by LIe sLuLed IegIsIuLIve IIndIngs
and the statutes purpose.
+6 )SSTU @F ">@7N>; O8EH> "<; ,?>;C;<8:
n connecLIon wILI LIeIr Iree speecI cIuIIenge, PIuInLIIIs uIso usserL
LIuL A;1 Is boLI unconsLILuLIonuIIy vugue und overbroud. TIese
arguments are grounded in Plaintiffs contention that A3371 regulates
speecI. HuvIng deLermIned LIuL A;1 covers conducL onIy, LIe mujorILy
of Plaintiffs arguments in this regard no longer apply. I nevertheless
uddress wIeLIer, us un oLIerwIse consLILuLIonuIIy permIssIbIe, ruLIonuI
reguIuLIon oI conducL, A;1 Is ImpermIssIbIy vugue or overbroud.
U6 O8EH>9>FF
PIuInLIIIs conLend LIuL A;1 Is unconsLILuLIonuIILy vugue becuuse
PIuInLIIIs do noL know wIuL Lype oI speecI or conducL Is ucLuuIIy
Case 3:l3-cv-05038-FLW-LHG Document 57 Filed ll/08/l3 Page 5l of 66 PagelD: l5ll
&!

proIIbILed by LIe sLuLuLe. The vagueness inquiry is grounded in the
notice requirement of the Fourteenth Amendments due process clause.
1.S. t. lue Mt. Sch. Dist., 6o .d q1, q (d CIr. zo11) (cILIng Cit oj
Chicco t. Morcles, z; U.S. q1, 6 (1qqq)). A sLuLuLe wIII be consIdered
voId Ior vugueness II IL does noL uIIow u person oI ordInury InLeIIIgence Lo
deLermIne wIuL conducL IL proIIbILs, or II IL uuLIorIzes urbILrury
enIorcemenL. Id.; Hill t. Colorcdo, o U.S. ;o, ;z (zooo). However,
perfect clarity and precise guidance have never been required even of
regulations that restrict expressive activity. Wcrd t. Rocl Acinst
Rccism, qq1 U.S. ;81, ;qq (1q8q) (cILuLIons omILLed). ndeed, voIdIng u
democruLIcuIIy enucLed sLuLuLe on grounds LIuL IL Is unduIy vugue Is un
exLreme remedy. Id. More purLIcuIurIy, u IucIuI vugueness uLLuck on u
sLuLuLe LIuL does noL InIrInge on consLILuLIonuIIy proLecLed Ireedomsus Is
LIe cuse In LIIs muLLercun succeed onIy II LIe sLuLuLe Is IncupubIe oI uny
vuIId uppIIcuLIon. Stejjel t. Thompson, q1 U.S. qz, q;q (1q;q); Villce oj
Hojjmcn Estcte t. Ilipside, Hojjmcn Estctes, Inc., q U.S. q8q, qq-q
(1q8z); roun t. Cit oj Pittsburh, 86 .d z6, z6q (d CIr. zooq)
([A] successful facial challenge requIres LIe cIuIIenger Lo esLubIIsI LIuL no
seL oI cIrcumsLunces exIsLs under which the Act would be valid. (InLernuI
quoLuLIon murks omILLed.)); Humcnitcricn Lcu Project t. U.S. Trecsur
Dept, ;8 .d 11, 11q6 (qLI CIr. zooq) (expIuInIng LIuL u sLuLuLe wIII
survive a facial vagueness challenge so long as it is clear what the statute
proscribes in the vast majority of its intended applications). In that
regurd, IL Is sIgnIIIcunL Lo beur In mInd LIuL specuIuLIon ubouL possIbIe or
Case 3:l3-cv-05038-FLW-LHG Document 57 Filed ll/08/l3 Page 52 of 66 PagelD: l5l2
&$

IypoLIeLIcuI uppIIcutions does not suffice; a statute that is valid in the
vast majority of its intended applications cannot be struck down on a
IucIuI cIuIIenge. Hill t. Colorcdo, o U.S. ;o, ; (zooo).
Moreover, In LIe conLexL oI u sLuLuLory proscrIpLIon LIuL purporLs Lo
reguIuLe u LurgeLed IndusLry or proIessIon, u sIIgILIy dIIIerenL Lype oI
unuIysIs uppIIes: if the statutory prohibition involves conduct of a select
group oI persons IuvIng specIuIIzed knowIedge, und LIe cIuIIenged
pIruseoIogy Is IndIgenous Lo LIe IdIom oI LIuL cIuss, the stcndcrd is
louered und u courL muy upIoId u sLuLuLe wIIcI uses words or pIruses
IuvIng u LecInIcuI or oLIer specIuI meunIng, weII enougI known Lo enubIe
those within its reach to correctly apply them. United Stctes t.
Weitzenhojj, .d 1z;, 1z8q (qLI CIr. 1qq) (empIusIs udded) (quoLIng
Precious Metals Assocs., Inc. v. Commodity Futures Trading Commn,
6zo .zd qoo, qo; (1sL CIr. 1q8o), In Lurn quoLIng Conncll t. Genercl
Constr. Co., z6q U.S. 8, q1 (1qz6) (InLernuI quoLuLIons omILLed)); cj.
Villce oj Hojjmcn Estcte, 455 U.S. at 498 ([E]conomIc reguIuLIon Is
subjecL Lo u Iess sLrIcL vugueness LesL becuuse ILs subjecL muLLer Is oILen
more nurrow, und becuuse . . . LIe reguIuLed enLerprIse muy Iuve LIe
ubIIILy Lo cIurIIy LIe meunIng oI LIe reguIuLIon by ILs own InquIry, or by
resort to an administrative process.).
Plaintiffs contend that the term sexual orientation and the phrase
sexual orientation change efforts are impermissibly vague. The latter
cIuIIenge cun be quIckIy dIsmIssed, us IL Is bused on, und sIgnIIIcunLIy
overlaps with, Plaintiffs substantive free speech challenge. ndeed,
Case 3:l3-cv-05038-FLW-LHG Document 57 Filed ll/08/l3 Page 53 of 66 PagelD: l5l3
&%

PIuInLIIIs prImury LIeory In LIIs cuse Is LIuL IL Is uncIeur wIeLIer under
A;1 PIuInLIIIs cun LuIk cbout SOCE Lo LIeIr cIIenLs, even II LIey ure noL
engugIng In ucLuuI SOCE. PIuInLIIIs LIus urgue LIuL A;1 burdens speecI
becuuse PIuInLIIIs wIII eILIer be cIIIIed Irom, or dIscIpIIned Ior, mereIy
speukIng ubouL SOCE. As my eurIIer dIscussIon mukes cIeur, LIe
reusonubIe reudIng of A3371, as well as the States position throughout this
IILIguLIon, IImILs LIe uppIIcuLIon oI LIe sLuLuLe Lo LIe ucLuuI prucLIce oI
SOCE. TIIs IImILuLIon resoIves PIuInLIIIs conLenLIon LIuL SOCE, us u
pIruse, Is unconsLILuLIonuIIy vugue.
TIe sLuLuLe deIInes SOCE by provIdIng un IIIusLruLIve IIsL oI
practices: sexual orientation change efforts means the practice of
seeking to change a persons sexual orientation, including, but not limited
Lo, eIIorLs Lo cIunge beIuvIors, gender IdenLILy, or gender expressIons, or
Lo reduce or eIImInuLe sexuuI or romunLIc uLLrucLIons or IeeIIngs Lowurd u
person of the same gender.
o
N.J.S.A. q:1-(b). GIven LIIs deIInILIon, IL
cunnoL be suId LIuL LIe sLuLuLe does noL uIIow u person oI ordInury
InLeIIIgence Lo deLermIne wIuL conducL IL proIIbILs, und LIereIore IL Is noL
IucIuIIy vugue.
NoLIIng In A;1 prevenLs u counseIor Irom menLIonIng LIe
exIsLence oI SOCE, recommendIng u book on SOCE or recommendIng

YD
The statute further provides that [s]exual orientation change
efforts shall not include . . . counseling that (1) provides acceptance,
supporL, und undersLundIng oI u person or facilitates a persons coping,
socIuI supporL, und IdenLILy expIoruLIon und deveIopmenL, IncIudIng sexuuI
orIenLuLIon-neuLruI InLervenLIons Lo prevenL or uddress unIuwIuI conducL
or unsuIe sexuuI prucLIces, und (z) does noL seek Lo cIunge sexuuI
orIenLution. N.J.S.A. q:1-(b).
Case 3:l3-cv-05038-FLW-LHG Document 57 Filed ll/08/l3 Page 54 of 66 PagelD: l5l4
&&

SOCE LreuLmenL by unoLIer unIIcensed person sucI us u reIIgIous IIgure or
recommendIng u IIcensed person In unoLIer sLuLe. TIe sLuLuLe does noL
require affirmation of a patients homosexuality. Even if, at the margins,
LIere Is some conjecLuruI uncerLuInLy us Lo wIuL LIe sLuLuLe proscrIbes,
sucI uncerLuInLy Is InsuIIIcIenL Lo voId LIe sLuLuLe Ior vugueness becuuse
it is clear what the statute proscribes in the vast majority of its intended
applications, namely counseling intended to alter a mInor patients sexual
orIenLuLIon. See Cal. Teachers Assn t. Stcte d. oj Educ., z;1 .d 11q1,
111 (qLI CIr. zoo1) (quoLIng Hill, o U.S. uL ;). Moreover, PIuInLIIIs
ure IIcensed proIessIonuIs wIo enguge In counseIIng, und II some PIuInLIIIs
ure noL IumIIIur wILI hou Lo prucLIce SOCE, PIuInLIIIs Iuve never
suggesLed LIuL LIey, or uny person wIo proIessIonuIIy counseIs, Is wIoIIy
unIumIIIur wILI LIe idec oI SOCE.
1
See Weitzenhojj, .d uL 1z8q.
Thus, Plaintiffs facial vagueness attack on the term sexual orientation
change efforts is wILIouL merIL.
PIuInLIIIs uIso cIuIIenge LIe Lerm sexual orientation, noting that it
Is undeIIned In LIe sLuLuLe, und cILIng LIe APA Tusk orce LIuL expIuIned

YC
For similar reasons, I reject Plaintiffs reliance on Keishicn t.
ocrd oj Reents oj Unitersit oj Stcte oj N.Y., 8 U.S. 8q, qq (1q6;),
wIIcI IeId LIuL u sLuLuLe proIIbILIng empIoyIng uny LeucIer wIo
advocates, udvIses, or LeucIes LIe docLrIne oI IorceIuI overLIrow oI LIe
government was unconstitutionally vague because [i]t w[ould] prohibit
LIe empIoymenL oI one wIo mereIy udvocuLes LIe docLrIne In LIe ubsLrucL
without any attempt to indoctrinate others. Id. Keishicn Is eusIIy
dIsLInguIsIed Irom LIIs cuse; PIuInLIIIs, us udmILLed prucLILIoners oI SOCE,
cannot claim that the phrase sexual orientation change efforts creates
uncerLuInLy us Lo wIuL u LIerupIsL cun und cunnoL do, us wus LIe cuse Ior
LeucIers In Keishicn. ndeed, A;1 expressIy LurgeLs u specIIIc Iorm oI
LIerupy known Lo LIe communILy In wIIcI IL Is prucLIced. See Piclup,
zo1z W 6oz1q6, uL 1q.
Case 3:l3-cv-05038-FLW-LHG Document 57 Filed ll/08/l3 Page 55 of 66 PagelD: l5l5
&'

that [s]ame-sex sexuuI uLLrucLIons und beIuvIor occur In LIe conLexL oI u
vurIeLy oI sexuuI orIenLuLIons . . . und . . . Is IIuId or Ius un IndeIInILe
outcome. Plaintiffs reason that because the term sexual orientation has
subjecLIve und InLercIungIng meunIngs, ILs usuge In LIe cIuIIenged sLuLuLe
mukes LIe sLuLuLe vugue. um noL persuuded LIuL the term sexual
orientation is unconstitutionally vague.
PIuInLIIIs, In LIeIr own decIuruLIons, demonsLruLe LIuL LIey
undersLund wIuL LIe Lerm sexuuI orIenLuLIon meuns und Iow LIuL Lerm
reIuLes Lo LIe conducL proIIbILed by A;1. See, e.., DecI. oI Dr. Turu
King, 4 (We offer counseling on numerous issues, including . . . sexual
orientation change efforts) id., 5 (I am c jormer lesbicn wIo wenL
through SOCE counseling. (Emphasis added.); Decl. of Dr. Ron.
Newman, 8 (Part of my prucLIce InvoIves wIuL Is oILen cuIIed sexuuI
orientation change efforts.). Indeed, Plaintiffs are bringing this suit
precIseIy becuuse LIey wIsI Lo enguge In SOCE. or PIuInLIIIs Lo urgue on
LIe one Iund LIuL LIeIr ubIIILy Lo enguge In SOCE Is ImpermIssIbIy
resLrIcLed by A;1, und on LIe oLIer Iund cIuIm LIuL A;1 Is
unconstitutionally vague because it fails to define sexual orientation
sLruIns creduIILy. RegurdIess, becuuse IInd LIuL u person oI ordInury
InLeIIIgenceIeL uIone PIuInLIIIswouId undersLund wIuL LIe Lerm sexuuI
orIenLuLIon meuns, A;1 Is noL vugue Ior LIe IncIusIon oI LIIs Lerm.
z


$!
For the same reason, I am unpersuaded by Plaintiffs reliance on
the recent revision of the American Psychiatric Associations Diagnostic
und SLuLIsLIcuI MunuuI oI MenLuI HeuILI DIsorders, DSM-V. See PI. Supp.
AuLIorILy, DkL. No. . AccordIng Lo PIuInLIIIs, LIe DSM-V InILIuIIy
Case 3:l3-cv-05038-FLW-LHG Document 57 Filed ll/08/l3 Page 56 of 66 PagelD: l5l6
&(

CunvussIng cuse Iuw on LIIs subjecL, Iuve Iound severuI courLs LIuL
Iuve deLermIned LIuL LIe Lerm sexuuI orIenLuLIon Is noL unconsLILuLIonuIIy
vugue. See Hmcn t. Cit oj Louistille, 1z . Supp. zd z8, q-q; (W.D.
Ky. zoo1) (reIyIng on BIuck's dIcLIonury deIInILIon, rejecLIng vugueness
cIuIIenge Lo sLuLuLe bunnIng dIscrImInuLIon on LIe busIs oI sexuuI
orIenLuLIon), revd on other grounds, ed. Appx. ;qo (6LI CIr. zooz);
United Stctes t. 1enlins, qoq . Supp. zd ;8, ;;8-;q (E.D. Ky. zo1z).
MosL recenLIy, LIe NInLI CIrcuIL reucIed LIe sume concIusIon In Piclup,
;z8 .d. at 1059 (Neither is the term sexuuI orIenLuLIon vugue. Ls
meunIng Is cIeur enougI Lo u reusonubIe person und sIouId be even more
apparent to mental health providers.). Likewise, the Supreme Court
Issued un opInIon IusL Lerm on LIe consLILuLIonuIILy oI SecLIon TIree oI LIe
DeIense oI MurrIuge AcL, 1 U.S.C. ;, deuIIng wILI LIe ederuI
governments authority to define marriage, for federal law purposes, as
beLween members oI LIe opposILe sex und Lo LIe excIusIon oI LIose oI LIe
sume sex. See United Stctes t. Windsor, __ U.S. __, 1 S.CL. z6;
(zo1). n dIscussIng LIe Issue oI sume-sex murrIuges, LIe mujorILy und
dissenting opinions employed the term sexual orientation several times;
sIgnIIIcunLIy, none oI LIe uuLIors oI LIese opInIons IeIL IL necessury Lo

classified pedophilia as sexual orientation, but then later changed the
classification to sexual interest, which Plaintiffs claim shows that the
deIInILIon oI sexuuI orIenLuLIon Is consLunLIy cIungIng. As LIe SLuLe
correcLIy poInLs ouL, und Indeed, Plaintiffs own filing shows, LIe APA
reIeused u sLuLemenL expIuInIng LIuL LIe InILIuI cIussIIIcuLIon oI pedopIIIIu
as a sexual orientation was merely a typographical error. Thus, Plaintiffs
cIuIm LIuL sexuuI orIenLuLIon Iuck cIeur deIInILIon bused on LIe DSM-V Is
merILIess, und In IucL, borders on beIng IrIvoIous.
Case 3:l3-cv-05038-FLW-LHG Document 57 Filed ll/08/l3 Page 57 of 66 PagelD: l5l7
&)

deIIne LIIs Lerm. AccordIngIy, um noL persuuded LIuL LIe Lerm sexual
orientation is vague to the reasonabIe IndIvIduuIund purLIcuIurIy noL Lo
menLuI IeuILI counseIorsund LIus, Plaintiffs vagueness challenge is
dIsmIssed.
J6 ,?>;C;>8:7N
PIuInLIIIs IusLIy ruIse un overbreudLI cIuIm Lo A;1 us purL oI LIeIr
IrsL AmendmenL Iree speecI cIuIIenge Lo LIe sLuLuLe. Under LIe
overbreudLI docLrIne, u Iuw uIIecLIng speecI wIII be deemed InvuIId on ILs
face if it prohibits a substantial amount of constitutionally protected
speech. Cit oj Houston t. Hill, q8z U.S. q1, q66 (1q8;). n conLrusL,
where conduct and not merely speech is involved, . . . the overbreadth of a
sLuLuLe musL noL onIy be reuI, buL subsLunLIuI us weII, judged In reIuLIon Lo
LIe sLuLuLe's pIuInIy IegILImuLe sweep. rocdricl t. Dllchomc, q1 U.S.
601, 615 (1973). In such cases, the mere fact that one can conceive of
some ImpermIssIbIe uppIIcuLIons oI u sLuLuLe Is noL suIIIcIenL Lo render IL
susceptible to an overbreadth challenge. Members oj Cit Council t.
Tcxpcers jor Vincent, q66 U.S. ;8q, 8oo (1q8q) (empIusIs udded).
Thus, as was the case with their vagueness challenge, much of Plaintiffs
overbreudLI urgumenL Is premIsed on A;1 beIng u sLuLuLe LIuL resLrIcLs
or IncIdenLuIIy burdens speecI. HuvIng Iound LIuL LIe sLuLuLe onIy
reguIuLes conducL, und noL speecI In uny consLILuLIonuIIy proLecLed Iorm,
PIuInLIIIs arguments regarding the statutes overbreadth are largely
IrreIevunL.
Case 3:l3-cv-05038-FLW-LHG Document 57 Filed ll/08/l3 Page 58 of 66 PagelD: l5l8
&*

Moreover, LIe overbreudLI docLrIne Is more upproprIuLeIy ruIsed by
u purty whose own activities are unprotected . . . [to] challenge a statute
by sIowIng LIuL IL subsLunLIuIIy ubrIdges LIe rIgILs oj other pcrties not
bejore the Court. Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Envt, qqq U.S.
6zo, 6q (1q8o) (empIusIs udded). Under LIIs prIncIpIe, courLs sIouId be
reluctant to entertain a facial overbreadth challenge where the parties
cIuIIengIng LIe sLuLuLe ure LIose wIo desIre Lo enguge In proLecLed speecI
that the overbroad statute purports to punish. roclett t. Spolcne
Arccdes, q;z U.S. qq1, oq (1q8). As one courL In LIIs dIsLrIcL Ius
expIuIned:
Unless it appears that cn cttempt to enjorce the
challenged legislation would create an unacceptable risk of
the suppression of ideas, a court should declare an entire
sLuLuLe InvuIId on ILs Iuce onIy II LIe record IndIcuLes LIuL LIe
cIuIIenged sLuLuLe wIII Iuve u dIIIerenL ImpucL upon LIIrd
purLIes noL beIore LIe courL LIun IL Ius upon LIe pIuInLIIIs.
Presbter oj Neu 1erse oj the Drthodox Presbtericn Church t. Ilorio,
qoz . Supp. qqz, 1; (D.N.J. 1qq) (cILIng Members oj Cit Council oj Los
Aneles t. Tcxpcers jor Vincent, q66 U.S. ;8q, 8o1 (1q8q)), affd sub
nom., Presbter oj Neu 1erse oj the Drthodox Presbtericn Church t.
Whitmcn, qq .d 1o1 (d CIr. 1qq6); see clso id. (Courts should not
enguge In overbreudLI unuIysIs wIere u pIuInLIII cIuIms LIuL u sLuLuLe Is
overbroud precIseIy because it applies to him. (cILIng Moore t. Cit oj
Kilore, 8;; .zd 6q, qo-qz (LI CIr. 1q8q))).
Here, LIe SLuLe Ius represenLed LIrougIouL LIIs IILIguLIon LIuL IL
onIy InLends Lo enIorce A;1 uguInsL IIcensed proIessIonuIs wIo ucLuuIIy
Case 3:l3-cv-05038-FLW-LHG Document 57 Filed ll/08/l3 Page 59 of 66 PagelD: l5l9
'+

conducL SOCE us u meLIod oI counseIIng, noL uguInsL LIose wIo mereIy
dIscuss LIe exIsLence oI SOCE wILI LIeIr cIIenLs. Becuuse A;1 Is
consLILuLIonuI wILI respecL Lo ILs proIIbILIon oI LIe prucLIce oI SOCE, us
expIuIned suprc In LIIs OpInIon, LIere exIsLs uL IeusL one consLILuLIonuI
means of enforcing the statute. Thus, on this basis alone, Plaintiffs
overbreudLI cIuIIenge IuIIs. Ilorio, qoz . Supp. uL 1;. or sImIIur
reusons, uIso IInd LIuL A;1 does noL encroucI on uny proLecLed IrsL
AmendmenL speecI, us LIe sLuLuLe by ILs own Lerms seeks Lo reguIuLe LIe
practice of SOCE by a licensed professional, and not any speech, public
or prIvuLe, by LIuL proIessIonuI or oLIer IndIvIduuIs; LIus LIere Is noL u
real, but substantial risk of overbreadth when A3371 is judged in
relation to the statutes plainly legitimate sweep. rocdricl, q1 U.S. uL
61. AccordIngIy, PIuInLIIIs Iuve noL sIown LIuL A;1 Is
unconsLILuLIonuIIy overbroud, und CounL Is dIsmIssed.
O#6 -@;F7 )G>9:G>97 -;>> %W>;R@F> <= *>I@E@<9
PIuInLIIIs muInLuIn LIuL In uddILIon Lo LIeIr speecI beIng unIuwIuIIy
consLruIned, A;1 InIrInges on LIeIr IrsL AmendmenL rIgIL Lo exercIse
LIeIr sIncereIy IeId reIIgIous beIIeIs LIuL cIungIng sume-sex uLLrucLIon or
beIuvIor Is possIbIe. TIereIore, PIuInLIIIs reuson, A;1 Imposes u
subsLunLIuI burden on LIose reIIgIous beIIeIs becuuse IL proIIbILs LIem
Irom provIdIng spIrILuuI counseI und ussIsLunce on LIe subjecL muLLer oI
sume-sex attractions. Plaintiffs arguments fare no better under this
LIeory.
Case 3:l3-cv-05038-FLW-LHG Document 57 Filed ll/08/l3 Page 60 of 66 PagelD: l520
'#

Under the First Amendment, Congress shall make no law
respecLIng LIe esLubIIsImenL oI reIIgIon or proIIbILIng LIe Iree exercIse
thereof. Conestoc Wood Speciclties Corp. t. Sec' oj the United Stctes
HHS, ;zq .d ;;, 8z-8 (d CIr. zo1). L Is weII-seLLIed LIuL, uL ILs
core, LIe ree ExercIse CIuuse proLecLs reIIgIous expressIon; Iowever, IL
does noL uIIord ubsoIuLe proLecLIon. See McTerncn t. Cit oj Yorl, ;;
.d z1, z (d CIr. zooq). RuLIer, wIere u Iuw Is neuLruI und oI
generuI uppIIcubIIILy|,| IL need noL be jusLIIIed by u compeIIIng
governmenL InLeresL even II LIe Iuw Ius LIe IncIdenLuI eIIecL oI burdenIng u
purLIcuIur reIIgIous prucLIce. Church oj the Lulumi cbclu Ae, Inc. t.
Cit oj Hiclech, o8 U.S. zo, 1 (1qq) (cILuLIons omILLed);
Emploment Ditision, Depcrtment oj Humcn Resources oj Dreon t.
Smith, qqq U.S. 8;z, 8qo (1qqo); Storemcn, Inc. t. Selecl, 86 .d
11oq, 11z8 (qLI Cir. 2012) (right to freely exercise ones reIIgIon . . . does
noL reIIeve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and
neuLruI Iuw oI generuI uppIIcubIIILy on LIe ground LIuL LIe Iuw proscrIbes
conduct that his religion prescribes.). I, on LIe oLIer Iund, LIe
governmenL ucLIon Is noL neuLruI und generuIIy uppIIcubIe, sLrIcL scruLIny
uppIIes, und LIe governmenL ucLIon vIoIuLes LIe ree ExercIse CIuuse
unIess IL Is nurrowIy LuIIored Lo udvunce u compeIIIng governmenL InLeresL.
Tencjl Erut Ass'n, Inc. t. orouh oj Tencjl, oq .d 1qq, 16 (d CIr.
zooz).
GovernmenL ucLIon Is noL neuLruI und generuIIy uppIIcubIe II IL
burdens reIIgIous conducL becuuse oI ILs reIIgIous moLIvuLIon, or II IL
Case 3:l3-cv-05038-FLW-LHG Document 57 Filed ll/08/l3 Page 6l of 66 PagelD: l52l
'!

burdens reIIgIousIy moLIvuLed conducL buL exempLs subsLunLIuI
compurubIe conducL LIuL Is noL reIIgIousIy moLIvuLed. See Hiclech, o8
U.S. uL q-q6; lcclhcul t. Pennsltcnic, 81 .d zoz, zoq (d CIr.
zooq); Lulumi, o8 U.S. uL q-q6; IDP Neucrl Lode No. :z t. Cit oj
Neucrl, 1;o .d q, 6q-66 (d CIr. 1qqq). On LIe oLIer Iund, [a] law
is neutral if it does not targeL reIIgIousIy moLIvuLed conducL |wIeLIer| on
its face or as applied in practice. Conestoc Wood Speciclties Corp. t.
Sebelius, q1; .Supp. zd qq, q1o (E.D. Pu. zo1z). urLIer, wIen LIe Iuw
Is neuLruI, LIe governmenL cunnoL udvunce ILs InLeresLs soIeIy by LurgeLIng
reIIgIousIy moLIvuLed conducL. nsLeud, LIe reguIuLIon musL be generuIIy
uppIIcubIe. See Combs t. Homer-Center Sch. Dist., qo .d z1, zqz (d
CIr. zoo8).
Here, A;1 mukes no reIerence Lo uny reIIgIous prucLIce, conducL,
or moLIvuLIon. TIereIore, on ILs Iuce, LIe sLuLuLe Is neuLruI. PIuInLIIIs
urgue LIuL LIe provIsIons oI A;1 wIII dIsproporLIonuLeIy uIIecL LIose
moLIvuLed by reIIgIous beIIeI becuuse A;1 eIIecLIveIy enguges In
impermissible religious gerrymandering by providing individualized
exempLIons Irom LIe generuI proIIbILIons. PIuInLIIIs IdenLIIy LIese
cuLegorIes oI exempLIons: (1) mInors seekIng Lo LrunsILIon Irom one gender
Lo unoLIer; (z) mInors sLruggIIng wILI or conIused ubouL IeLerosexuuI
uLLrucLIons, beIuvIors, or IdenLILy; () counseIIng LIuL IucIIILuLes
expIoruLIon und deveIopmenL oI sume-sex uLLrucLIon, beIuvIors, or
IdenLILy; (q) IndIvIduuIs over LIe uge oI 18 wIo ure seekIng Lo reduce or
eIImInuLe sume-sex uLLrucLIon; und () counseIIng provIded by unIIcensed
Case 3:l3-cv-05038-FLW-LHG Document 57 Filed ll/08/l3 Page 62 of 66 PagelD: l522
'$

persons. Contrary to Plaintiffs contentions, A3371 is one of generally
uppIIcubIIILy, und LIereIore, IL Is onIy subjecL Lo u ruLIonuI busIs LesL.
To begIn, LIere cun be no serIous doubL LIuL LIe egIsIuLure enucLed
A3371 because it found that SOCE poses critical health risks to minors.
See N.J.S.A. q:1-q. By doIng so, LIe egIsIuLure exercIsed ILs reguIuLory
powers Lo proIIbIL IIcensed menLuI IeuILI proIessIonuIs In New Jersey
Irom engugIng In SOCE. TIere Is no IndIcuLIon In LIe record LIuL reIIgIon
wus u moLIvuLIng IucLor In LIe pussuge oI A;1. n IucL, PIuInLIIIs Iuve noL
suggesLed LIuL LIe egIsIuLure wus moLIvuLed by uny reIIgIous purpose.
rom ILs pIuIn Iunguuge, LIe Iuw does noL seek Lo LurgeL or burden reIIgIous
prucLIces or beIIeIs. RuLIer, A;1 burs uII IIcensed menLuI IeuILI
provIders Irom engugIng In SOCE wILI mInors, regurdIess oI wIeLIer LIuL
provIder or LIe mInor seekIng SOCE Is moLIvuLed by reIIgIon or moLIvuLed
by uny oLIer purpose. PIuInIy, A;1 Is neuLruI In nuLure. See roun t.
Cit oj Pittsburh, 86 .d z6, z8q (d CIr. zooq) (IIndIng no ree
ExercIse vIoIuLIon wIere cIuIIenged resLrIcLIons on proLesLs neur uborLIon
clinic app[lied] irrespective oI wIeLIer LIe beIIeIs underpInnIng LIe
regulated expression are religious or secular). Because of the statutes
neuLruIILy, even II A;1 dIsproporLIonuLeIy uIIecLs LIose moLIvuLed by
reIIgIous beIIeI, LIIs IucL does noL ruIse uny ree ExercIse concerns.
Lulumi, 508 U.S. at 581 (a law that is neutral . . . need not be justified by
u compeIIIng governmenLuI InLeresL even II LIe Iuw Ius LIe IncIdenLuI eIIecL
of burdening a particular religious practice.).
Case 3:l3-cv-05038-FLW-LHG Document 57 Filed ll/08/l3 Page 63 of 66 PagelD: l523
'%

TIe sLuLuLe Is uIso generuIIy uppIIcubIe becuuse A;1 does noL
suppress, LurgeL, or sIngIe ouL LIe prucLIce oI uny reIIgIon becuuse oI
religious conduct. At the outset, the Court disagrees with Plaintiffs
cIurucLerIzuLIon LIuL A;1 curves ouL cerLuIn excepLIons. RuLIer, LIose
exemptions are areus LIuL A;1 does noL seek Lo reguIuLe becuuse LIey
IuII ouLsIde LIe purpose oI LIe statute. Nevertheless, addressing Plaintiffs
arguments, the exemptions to which Plaintiffs point do not undermine
LIe purposes oI LIe Iuw. AccordIng Lo PIuInLIIIs, LIe IIrsL exempLIon In
A3371 is for counseling for a person seeking to transition from one gender
to another; that is, counseling noL reIuLed Lo cIungIng sexuuI orIenLuLIon
or gender IdenLILy, buL Lowurd ussIsLIng someone seekIng Lo IIve
consIsLenLIy wILI IIs or Ier gender IdenLILy. TIIs exempLIon does noL
undermIne LIe purposes oI A;1. n IucL, IL Is consIsLenL wILI LIe
Legislatures concern LIuL conversIon LIerupy Is IurmIuI. NexL, LIuL
unIIcensed counseIors ure noL covered by LIe sLuLuLe uIso does noL
undermIne LIe purpose oI LIe sLuLuLe. As LIe CourL Ius dIscussed eurIIer,
pursuunL Lo ILs poIIce power, LIe SLuLe onIy uImed Lo reguIuLe LIose
professionals who are licensed. Stated differently, it is the States role to
reguIuLe ILs proIessIonuIs -- medIcuI or oLIerwIse -- und LIereIore, becuuse
unlicensed professionals do not fall within the States comprehensIve
reguIuLory scIemes, LIis type of exemption neither undermInes LIe
statutes purpose nor does it somehow change the statutes general
uppIIcubIIILy.
Case 3:l3-cv-05038-FLW-LHG Document 57 Filed ll/08/l3 Page 64 of 66 PagelD: l524
'&

Moreover, Lo LIe exLenL LIuL LIe egIsIuLure dIsLInguIsIed beLween
SOCE provIded Lo mInors und uduILs, LIIs dIsLIncLIon does noL render LIe
Iuw noL generuIIy uppIIcubIe. ndeed, becuuse LIe egIsIuLure deLermIned,
pursuunL Lo ILs reguIuLory powers, LIuL SOCE LreuLmenL poses serIous
IeuILI rIsks Lo mInors, LIe IImILed reucI oI LIe sLuLuLe does noL cIunge LIe
nuLure oI LIe sLuLuLe, purLIcuIurIy In IIgIL oI LIe IucL LIuL LIe egIsIuLure
Ius u sLrong InLeresL In proLecLIng mInors, u vuInerubIe group In socIeLy.
See, suprc, p. qq. InuIIy, und more ImporLunLIy, A;1 does noL conLuIn u
mecIunIsm Ior IndIvIduuI exempLIons nor does IL exempL u subsLunLIuI
cuLegory oI conducL LIuL Is noL reIIgIousIy moLIvuLed Irom ILs proIIbILIon
on LIe prucLIce oI SOCE. nsLeud, LIe provIsIon proIIbILs uII sLuLe IIcensed
menLuI IeuILI provIders Irom prucLIcIng SOCE. InuIIy, A;1 does noL
proIIbIL uny reIIgIous Ieuders, wIo ure noL IIcensed counseIors, Irom
prucLIcIng SOCE. TIIs IucL IurLIer demonsLruLes LIuL A;1 Ius no
reIIgIous underpInnIngs und LIereIore, IL does noL seIecLIveIy Impose uny
Lype oI burden on reIIgIousIy moLIvuLed conducL. AccordIngIy, A;1 Is
generuIIy uppIIcubIe sInce IL does noL ImpermIssIbIy LurgeL uny reIIgIous
beIIeI. Bused upon LIuL IIndIng, LIe ruLIonuI busIs LesL uppIIes. or LIe
sume reusons wIy A;1 pusses consLILuLIonuI musLer Ior Iree speecI
purposes, IL pusses ruLIonuI busIs revIew In LIIs conLexL us weII.
usLIy, PIuInLIIIs urgue LIuL even II A;1 Is u neuLruI und generuIIy
uppIIcubIe Iuw, A;1 Is neverLIeIess subjecL Lo sLrIcL scruLIny us u
violation of the hybrid rights doctrine. summurIIy rejecL Plaintiffs
InvILuLIon Lo uppIy LIe IybrId rIgILs docLrIne, us LIe TIIrd CIrcuIL Ius
Case 3:l3-cv-05038-FLW-LHG Document 57 Filed ll/08/l3 Page 65 of 66 PagelD: l525
''

decIIned Lo uppIy LIIs LIeory Lo ree ExercIse cIuIms. roun, 86 .d uL
284 n.24 (Like many of our sister courts of appeals, we have noL endorsed
this theory.).
CounL V oI LIe CompIuInL Is dIsmIssed.
O##6 +,"+V!(#,"
For the reasons set forth above, Garden States motion for
permIssIve InLervenLIon Is 3*)"$%&. Plaintiffs motion for summary
judgmenL Is &%"#%&. Defendants cross motion for summary judgment
Is 3*)"$%& in its entirety. Accordingly, all of Plaintiffs IederuI und
sLuLe consLILuLIonuI cIuIms uguInsL DeIendunLs ure &#(B#((%&, und
PIuInLIIIs Iuve no sLundIng Lo brIng uny LIIrd purLy cIuIms on beIuII oI
their minor clients and the clients parents.


&)$%&: November 8, zo1 JsJ redu . WoIIson
redu . WoIIson
UnILed SLuLes DIsLrIcL Judge


Case 3:l3-cv-05038-FLW-LHG Document 57 Filed ll/08/l3 Page 66 of 66 PagelD: l526