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
0Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
13-15023 #86

13-15023 #86

Ratings: (0)|Views: 8|Likes:
Published by Equality Case Files
Doc 86 - State's Opposition to Rehearing
Doc 86 - State's Opposition to Rehearing

More info:

Published by: Equality Case Files on Oct 18, 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

10/18/2013

pdf

text

original

 
13-15023IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DONALD WELCH; et al.,
Plaintiffs and Appellees,
v.EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor of the State of California; et al.,
Defendants and Appellants.On Appeal from the United States District Courtfor the Eastern District of California No. CIV. 2:12-2484 WBS LKNThe Honorable William B. Shubb, Judge
DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS’ RESPONSETO PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARINGAND REHEARING EN BANC
AMALA
D.
 
H
ARRIS
 Attorney General of CaliforniaD
OUGLAS
J.
 
W
OODS
 Senior Assistant Attorney GeneralT
AMAR 
P
ACHTER 
 Supervising Deputy AttorneyGeneralA
LEXANDRA
OBERT
G
ORDON
 State Bar No. 207650Deputy Attorney General455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000San Francisco, CA 94102-7004Telephone: (415) 703-5509Fax: (415) 703-5480Email:
 Alexandra.RobertGordon@doj.ca.gov
Attorneys for Defendants-Appellants
Case: 13-15023 10/17/2013 ID: 8826264 DktEntry: 86 Page: 1 of 28
 
TABLE OF CONTENTSPage
iINTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1ARGUMENT ................................................................................................. 2I. Plaintiffs Fail To Satisfy the Requirements for Rehearingor Rehearing En Banc ............................................................... 2II. The Panel Considered All Relevant Facts and Law and properly Determined That SB 1172 Is Constitutional .............. 4A. SB 1172 Regulates Unprofessional Conduct; ItDoes Not Restrict Protected Speech. .............................. 7B. SOCE Therapy Is Not Protected Speech. ....................... 8C. The Cases Relied Upon by Plaintiffs and AmicusAre Inapposite and Do Not Require theApplication of Heightened Scrutiny To SB 1172. ........ 131.
 Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project 
doesnot apply. ............................................................ 132.
Conant 
is inapposite. .......................................... 15CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 18STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES ....................................................... 20
Case: 13-15023 10/17/2013 ID: 8826264 DktEntry: 86 Page: 2 of 28
 
TABLE OF AUTHORITIESPage
ii
C
ASES
 
 Accountant’s Soc’y of Va. v. Bowman
 860 F.2d 602 (4th Cir. 1988) ............................................................... 6
 Anderson v. City of Hermosa Beach
 621 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2010) ........................................................... 12
 Arcara v. Cloud Books
 478 U.S. 697 (1986)........................................................................... 15
 Armster v. United States Dist. Ct 
.806 F.2d 1347 (9th Cir. 1986) ............................................................. 2
 Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Ass’n
 131 S. Ct. 2729 (2011) ................................................................. 11, 15
City of Dallas v. Stanglin
 490 U.S. 19 (1989)............................................................................. 12
Coggeshall v. Mass. Bd. of Registration of Psychologists
 604 F.3d 658 (1st Cir. 2010)................................................................ 6
Conant v. McCaffrey
  No. 97-00139, 2000 WL 1281174 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 7, 2000) .... passim
Conant v. McCaffrey
  No. C 97-0139, 1998 WL 164946 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 1998) .......... 13
Conant v. Walters
 309 F.3d 629 (9th Cir. 2002) ............................................................. 16
Cooksey v. Futrell 
 721 F.3d 226 (4th Cir. 2013) ............................................................... 7
 Daly v. Sprague
 742 F.2d 896 (5th Cir. 1984) ......................................................... 7, 12
Case: 13-15023 10/17/2013 ID: 8826264 DktEntry: 86 Page: 3 of 28

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)//-->