Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more ➡
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Add note
Save to My Library
Sync to mobile
Look up keyword
Like this
0Activity
×
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
3:13-cv-05038 #33

3:13-cv-05038 #33

Ratings: (0)|Views: 56|Likes:
Published by Equality Case Files
Doc 33 - Plaintiffs' Reply in support of Motion for Summary Judgment and Joint Response/Opposition to Defendants' Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment
Doc 33 - Plaintiffs' Reply in support of Motion for Summary Judgment and Joint Response/Opposition to Defendants' Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment

More info:

Categories:Business/Law
Published by: Equality Case Files on Oct 08, 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

10/08/2013

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-5308
PLAINTIFFS’
REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARYJUDGMENT AND JOINT RESPONSE/ 
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ CROSS
-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Case 3:13-cv-05038-FLW-LHG Document 33 Filed 09/20/13 Page 1 of 66 PageID: 980
 
i
TABLE OF CONTENTSINTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................1ARGUMENT.................................................................................................................................1I. THERE ARE NO MATERIAL FACTS IN DISPUTE..................................................1II. PLAINTIFFS ARE ENTITLED TO JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW..........1A. The
 Pickup
Panel’s Decision Subjecting SOCE Prohibitions to Rational
Basis Review Was Erroneous and Should be Rejected..................................................11. Professional Regulations Are Subject to Strict Scrutiny whenContent or Viewpoint Based.................................................................................22. The
 Pickup
Panel Erred by not Applying
O’Brien.
............................................7B. A3371 is a Viewpoint-Based Restriction on Private Speech, which is AlwaysUnconstitutional...............................................................................................................10C. A3371 is a Content-Based Restriction on Private Speech and ThereforeSubject to Strict Scrutiny................................................................................................161. A3371 is not justified by a compelling interest.................................................182. A3371 is not the least restrictive means.............................................................233.
Defendants’ and GSE’s cited cases reveal that strict scrutiny
 applies even in the professional context.............................................................25D.
Even under Defendant’ and GSE’s Categorization of SOCE as Primarily
Conduct, A3371 is Subject to Intermediate Scrutiny under
O’Brien
.........................271. Even if A3371 were a restriction on conduct, it regulates expressiveconduct and intermediate scrutiny applies........................................................282. A3371 does not advance an important government interest............................303. A3371 is targeted at the suppression of the message of SOCE........................314
.
 
The State’s and GSE’s authorities do not support rational basis
scrutiny..................................................................................................................34E. Plaintiffs have Standing to Raise Claims on behalf of their Clients...........................36
Case 3:13-cv-05038-FLW-LHG Document 33 Filed 09/20/13 Page 2 of 66 PageID: 981
 
ii
F.
A3371 Infringes the Plaintiffs’ Patients’ Right to Receive Information
................37G.
A3371 Infringes Plaintiffs’ Clients Right to Direct t
he Upbringing of theirChildren........................................................................................................................38H. A3371 is Vague.............................................................................................................401.
The term “sexual orientation” is vague
........................................................402.
The term “SOCE” is vague
............................................................................44I. A3371 is Substantially Overbroad..............................................................................47J. A3371 is Subject to Strict Scrutiny under the Free Exercise Clause......................491.
A3371’s provides for several individualized exemptions
underminingthe alleged purpose of the law.........................................................................512. A3371 violates the hybrid rights of Plaintiffs, their patients, and their
patients’ parents
...............................................................................................533.
A3371 substantially burdens Plaintiffs’ sincerely held religious beliefs
....544. A3371 cannot survive strict scrutiny..............................................................57a. A3371 is not justified by a compelling interest..................................57b. A3371 is not narrowly tailored............................................................57c. A3371 is not the least restrictive meansCONCLUSION.........................................................................................................................57
Case 3:13-cv-05038-FLW-LHG Document 33 Filed 09/20/13 Page 3 of 66 PageID: 982

You're Reading a Free Preview

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