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
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
3:13-cv-05038 #4

3:13-cv-05038 #4

Ratings: (0)|Views: 11|Likes:
Published by Equality Case Files
Doc 4 - Memo in Support of motion for TRO and Preliminary Injunction
Doc 4 - Memo in Support of motion for TRO and Preliminary Injunction

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: Equality Case Files on Aug 27, 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

12/02/2013

pdf

text

original

 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTDISTRICT OF NEW JERSEYTRENTON DIVISIONTARA KING
,
ED.D.
, individually and on behalf of her patients,
RONALDNEWMAN
,
PH.D.
, individually and on behalf of his patients,
NATIONALASSOCIATION FOR RESEARCH ANDTHERAPY OF HOMOSEXUALITY(NARTH)
,
AMERICAN ASSOCIATIONOF CHRISTIAN COUNSELORS(AACC)
,Plaintiffs,v.
CHRISTOPHER J. CHRISTIE
, Governor of the State of New Jersey, in his officialcapacity,
ERIC T. KANEFSKY
, Director of the New Jersey Department of Law andPublic Safety: Division of Consumer Affairs,in his official capacity,
MILAGROSCOLLAZO
, Executive Director of the NewJersey Board of Marriage and FamilyTherapy Examiners, in her official capacity,
J. MICHAEL WALKER 
, ExecutiveDirector of the New Jersey Board of Psychological Examiners, in his officialcapacity;
PAUL JORDAN
, President of the New Jersey State Board of MedicalExaminers, in his official capacity,Defendants.Case No. 13-cv-5038
PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM IN
SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR TEMPORARYRESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Case 3:13-cv-05038-FLW-LHG Document 4 Filed 08/23/13 Page 1 of 36 PageID: 177
 
Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for TRO and Preliminary Injunction
i
TABLE OF CONTENTSTABLE OF CONTENTS...............................................................................................................iTABLE OF AUTHORITIES........................................................................................................ii
INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………………
.....1
STATEMENT OF FACTS………………………………………………………………………
2
ARGUMENT……………………………………………………………………………………
..2I. PLAINTIFFS ARE LIKELY TO SUCCEED ON THE
MERITS…………………
..3A. A3371 Constitutes Viewpoint Discrimination against Private Speech and
such Regulations Have Always Been Found Unconstitutional………………
..4B. A3371 is a Content-Based Prior Restraint on Speech and Cannot Survive
Strict Scrutiny…………………………………………………………………..
..91. Professional regulations of speech are subject to strict scrutiny whencontent-
based……………………………………………………………10
 2. A3371 is not justified by a comp
elling government interest…………11
 3. A3371 is not na
rrowly tailored………………………………………...16
 C. A3371 is Unconstitutionall
y Vague and Overbroad………………………….18
 1.
The term “sexual orientation” is vague…………………………….....19
 2.
The phrase “sexual orientation change efforts” is vague……….....…20
 3. A3371 is
overbroad………………………………………………..……22
 D.
A3371 Unconstitutionally Infringes on the Rights of Plaintiffs’ Clients toReceive Information Regarding Available Treatment……………………
.
23II. PLAINTIFFS ARE SUFFERING IMMEDIATE AND IRREPARABLEINJURY............................................................................................................................26III. THE BALANCE OF THE EQUITIES
TIPS IN PLAINTIFFS’ FAVOR……….…28
 IV. AN INJUNCTION IS IN TH
E PUBLIC INTEREST…………………………......…28
 
CONCLUSION………………………………………………………………………………
....29
Case 3:13-cv-05038-FLW-LHG Document 4 Filed 08/23/13 Page 2 of 36 PageID: 178
 
Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for TRO and Preliminary Injunction
ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIESCASES
 Acierno v. New Castle Cnty
., 40 F.3d 645 (3d Cir. 1994)...............................................................2
 ACLU v. Ashcroft 
, 322 F.3d 240 (3d Cir. 2003)........................................................................3, 29
 ACLU v. Reno
, 217 F.3d 162 (3d Cir. 2000).................................................................................29
 Amoco Prod. Co. v. Vill. of Gambell 
, 480 U.S. 531 (1987)...........................................................28
 Awad v. Ziriax
, 670 F.3d 1111 (10th Cir. 2012)............................................................................18
 Bates v. State Bar of Ariz.
, 433 U.S. 350 (1977)...........................................................................24
 Bd. of Educ., Island Trees Union Free Sch. Dist. No. 26 v. Pico
, 457 U.S. 853 (1982)...............23
 Broadrick v. Oklahoma
, 413 U.S. 601 (1973)...............................................................................19
 Brown v. Entm’t Merchants Ass’n
,
 
131 S. Ct. 2729 (2011).....................................................10, 12
Century Commc’ns Corp. v. FCC 
, 835 F.2d 292 (D.C. Cir. 1987)...............................................12
Child Evangelism Fellowship of N.J., Inc. v. Stafford Tp. Sch. Dist.
, 386 F.3d 514(3d Cir. 2004)..................................................................................................................................5
Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah
, 508 U.S. 520 (1993).........................15
City Council of L.A. v. Taxpayers for Vincent 
, 466 U.S. 789 (1984)..............................................4
City of Ladue v. Gilleo
, 512 U.S. 43 (1994)............................................................................14, 15
Conant v. Walters
, 309 F.3d 629 (9th Cir. 2002)..................................................................7, 8, 24
Connally v. Gen. Const. Co.
, 269 U.S. 385 (1926).......................................................................18
 Déjà vu of Nashville
,
 Inc. v. Metro. Gov’t of Nashville & Davidson Cnty.
, 274 F.3d 377(6th Cir. 2001)...............................................................................................................................28
 Elrod v. Burns
, 427 U.S. 347 (1976).................................................................................26, 27, 28
 Florida Bar v. Went For It, Inc.
, 515 U.S. 618 (1995)....................................................................8
Grayned v. City of Rockford 
, 408 U.S. 104 (1972)..................................................................18, 19
Case 3:13-cv-05038-FLW-LHG Document 4 Filed 08/23/13 Page 3 of 36 PageID: 179

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)//-->