Post Office Box 540774 Orlando, FL 32854-0774
122 C Street N.W., Suite 640 Washington, DC 20001
9656 Post Office Box 11108 Lynchburg, VA 24506-1108 Tel
Reply to: Virginia
July 16, 2014
Via CM/ECF Electronic Filing
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit James A. Byrne United States Courthouse 601 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19105 RE:
Tara King, et al. v. Governor of the State of New Jersey
, Case No. 13-4429
Citation to Supplemental Authority, Fed. R. App. P. 28(j), 3d Cir. R. 112.8(g)
Dear Honorable Members of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit: Plaintiffs/Appellants wish to d
irect the Court’s attention to two recently released
decisions filed on January 17, 2014, in the Middle District of North Carolina,
Stuart v. Loomis
, No. 1:11-CV-804, 2014 WL 186310 (M.D.N.C. Jan. 17, 2014) and on March 7, 2014,
Tepeyac v. Montgomery Cnty.
, No. DKC 10-1259, 2014 WL 923320 (D. Md. Mar. 7, 2014). A copy of each case is attached hereto. These cases address some of the same issues under consideration in Case No. 13-4429, namely, the constitutionality of a State mandating that a licensed mental
health professional espouse only the State’s viewpoint on an otherwise permissible
subject matter regardless of whether that professional believes it to be in the best
interest of the client or detrimental to the client’s health
is directly relevant to
Judge Smith’s question concerning the informed consent provision at issue in
Planned Parenthood of Se. Penn. v. Casey
, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) and notes that the plurality upheld an informed consent requirement because it contained a medical judgment/therapeutic exception for a physician who believed the mandated disclosure
was not in his client’s best interest.
This point was also made by the Ninth Circuit in
Conant v. Walters
, 309 F.3d 629, 638 (9th Cir. 2002), which is cited in Appellants
brief at 31-32. No such exception exists under A3371.
is relevant to
questions concerning the appropriate level of scrutiny for speech restrictions in the medical setting and holds that strict scrutiny is appropriate even in the medical context when the regulation is content based.