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
Welch v. Brown - Supreme Court Petition

Welch v. Brown - Supreme Court Petition

Ratings: (0)|Views: 39|Likes:
Published by Equality Case Files
Welch v. Brown Cert Petition. Filed April 22, 2014
Welch v. Brown Cert Petition. Filed April 22, 2014

More info:

Published by: Equality Case Files on Apr 24, 2014
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved

Availability:

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

04/25/2014

pdf

text

original

 
No. _________
================================================================
In The
Supreme ourt of the United States
---------------------------------
 --------------------------------- DONALD WELCH,  ANTHONY DUK, and AARON BITZER,
 Petitioners,
v. EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor of the State of California, et al.,
 Respondents.
---------------------------------
 ---------------------------------
On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit
---------------------------------
 ---------------------------------
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
---------------------------------
 ---------------------------------
EVIN
 T. S
NIDER
 
Counsel of Record
 M
ICHAEL
 J. P
EFFER
 M
 ATTHEW
 B. M
C
R
EYNOLDS
 P
 ACIFIC
 J
USTICE
 I
NSTITUTE
 PO Box 276600 Sacramento, CA 95823 Phone: (916) 857-6900 Fax: (916) 857-6902 E-mail: ksnider@pji.org
 Attorneys for Petitioners
 ================================================================
COCKLE LEGAL BRIEFS (800) 225-6964 WWW.COCKLELEGALBRIEFS.COM
 
i
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
 The California Legislature passed a law which provides that “under no circumstances shall” mental health providers engage in “any practices” that “seek to change” a minor’s sexual orientation, gender iden-tity or gender expression, or “eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings towards individuals of the same sex.” Further, “[a]ny sexual orientation change efforts attempted” on a minor sub- jects a mental health provider to discipline by state licensing entities. But the statute specifies that it does not prohibit practices or efforts that provide ac-ceptance and support of sexual identity exploration and development so long as the psychotherapy does not seek to change sexual orientation. On its face, the statute favors one viewpoint over the other. Notwith-standing this danger zone, the Ninth Circuit created a “continuum” of diminishing First Amendment pro-tections and concluded the communications described in the law merited no First Amendment protection, because they consisted of professional conduct and not speech. The questions presented are: 1. Is professional mental health counseling a category of speech outside of First Amendment pro-tection? 2. May a State exempt from First Amendment scrutiny its prohibition on certain types of counseling by designating such as conduct and not speech?
 
ii
PARTIES
 The parties to this Petition are the three plain-tiffs in
Welch v. Brown
, Donald Welch, Ph.D., Anthony Duk, M.D., and Aaron Bitzer.
1
 Collectively the Peti-tioners are referred to as “Welch.” Respondents are Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Gover-nor of the State of California, Anna M. Caballero, Secretary of California State and Consumer Services, Denise Brown, Case Manager, Director of Consumer  Affairs, Christine Wietlisbach, Patricia Lock-Dawson, Samara Ashley, Harry Douglas, Julia Johnson, Sarita Kohli, Renee Lonner, Karen Pines, and Christina Wong, in their official capacities as members of the Califor-nia Board of Behavioral Sciences, Sharon Levine, Michael Bishop, Silvia Diego, Dev Gnanadev, Reginald Low, Denise Pines, Janet Salomonson, Gerrie Schipske, David Serrano Sewell, and Barbara Yaroslavsky, in their official capacities as members of the Medical Board of California.
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Pursuant to Fed. R. App. Proc. 26.1, there is no parent corporation or other entity owning 10% rela-tive to Petitioners.
1
 Parties also subject to the decision of the Ninth Circuit sought to be reviewed in case number 12-17681 include David Pickup, et al. These parties have separately petitioned this Court for a writ of certiorari and are not represented by counsel herein.

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)//-->