Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
12-17681 #11

12-17681 #11

Ratings: (0)|Views: 18|Likes:
Published by Equality Case Files
Doc #11 - Appellants' opening brief
Doc #11 - Appellants' opening brief

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: Equality Case Files on Jan 03, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

09/15/2013

pdf

text

original

 
 CASE NO. 12-17681UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUITDAVID PICKUP, CHRISTOPHER H. ROSIK, PH.D., JOSEPH NICOLOSI,PH.D,ROBERT VAZZO, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR RESEARCH ANDTHERAPY OF HOMOSEXUALITY (NARTH), AMERICAN ASSOCIATIONOF CHRISTIAN COUNSELORS (AACC), JOHN DOE 1, by and through JACKAND JANE DOE 1, JACK DOE 1, individually, and JANE DOE 1, individually,JOHN DOE 2, by and through JACK AND JANE DOE 2, JACK DOE 2,individually, and JANE DOE 2, individually,Plaintiffs-Appellants,v.EDMUND G. BROWN, Jr. Governor of the State of California, in his officialcapacity; ANNA M. CABALLERO, Secretary of the State and Consumer ServicesAgency of the State of California, in her official capacity, KIM MADSEN,Executive Officer of the California Board of Behavioral Sciences, in her officialcapacity; MICHAEL ERICKSON, PH.D, President of the California Board of Psychology, in his official capacity; SHARON LEVINE, President of the MedicalBoard of California, in her official capacity,Defendants-Appellees.andEQUALITY CALIFORNIA, Intervenor-Defendant-Appellee
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION APPEAL (9TH CIRCUIT RULE 3-3)On Appeal from the Eastern District of CaliforniaCase No. 2:12-cv-02497-KJM-EFB Honorable Kimberly J. Mueller_______________________________________________________________PLAINTIFFS-
APPELLANTS’ OPENING BRIEF
Mathew D. Staver (Lead Counsel)Anita L. StaverLIBERTY COUNSEL1055 Maitland Ctr. Cmmns 2d FloorMaitland, FL 32751-7214Tel. (800) 671-1776Email court@lc.orgStephen M. CramptonMary E. McAlisterLIBERTY COUNSELP.O. Box 11108Lynchburg, VA 24506Tel. (434) 592-7000Email court@lc.orgAttorneys for Appellants
Case: 12-17681 01/02/2013 ID: 8458085 DktEntry: 11 Page: 1 of 78
 
i
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENTFRAP 26.1
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1, Plaintiff-AppellantNATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR RESEARCH AND THERAPY OFHOMOSEXUALITY (NARTH) states that there is no parent corporation orpublicly held corporation that owns 10 percent or more of its stock.Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1, Plaintiff-AppellantAMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF CHRISTIAN COUNSELORS (AACC) statesthat there is no parent corporation or publicly held corporation that owns 10percent or more of its stock.
Case: 12-17681 01/02/2013 ID: 8458085 DktEntry: 11 Page: 2 of 78
 
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTSTABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................. vJURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT ....................................................................... 1ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW .................................................................. 1STATUTORY ADDENDUM .................................................................................. 3STATEMENT OF THE CASE ............................................................................... 4STATEMENT OF FACTS ...................................................................................... 5
 
I. THE ENACTMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF SB 1172 ................ 5II. PLAINTIFFS ................................................................................................11A. COUNSELORS AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ................12B. MINOR AND PARENT PLAINTIFFS ...................................................16SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .............................................................................17
 
STANDARD OF REVIEW ...................................................................................19
 
ARGUMENT ..........................................................................................................21
 
I. THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED WHEN IT HELD THATPLAINTIFFS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LIKELIHOOD OFSUCCESS ON THE MERITS. ..........................................................................21A. The Court Utilized The Wrong Legal Standard. ...................................21B. The District Court Erred When It Concluded That Banning SOCE
Counseling For Minors Does Not Abridge Plaintiffs’ Free Sp
eech RightsUnder The First Amendment. ........................................................................23
Case: 12-17681 01/02/2013 ID: 8458085 DktEntry: 11 Page: 3 of 78

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->