Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
13-4429 #80752

13-4429 #80752

Ratings: (0)|Views: 35 |Likes:
Published by Equality Case Files
Doc #003111680752 - Plaintiffs' Notice of Supplemental Authority
Doc #003111680752 - Plaintiffs' Notice of Supplemental Authority

More info:

Published by: Equality Case Files on Jul 16, 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

07/19/2014

pdf

text

original

 
 
Post Office Box 540774 Orlando, FL 32854-0774
Telephone: 800•671•1776
 
Facsimile: 407•875•0770
 www.LC.org
 
122 C Street N.W., Suite 640 Washington, DC 20001
Telephone: 202•289•1776
 
Facsimile: 202•216•
9656 Post Office Box 11108 Lynchburg, VA 24506-1108 Tel
ephone: 434•592•7000
 
Facsimile: 434•592•7700
 liberty@LC.org
 
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
.
Stuart 
 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.
Tepeyac
is relevant to
the Court’s
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.
 
Case: 13-4429 Document: 003111680752 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/16/2014
 
  A copy of this letter i
s provided to all counsel of record via this Court’s CM/ECF
electronic service. /s/ Mathew D. Staver Mathew D. Staver
 Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellants
Case: 13-4429 Document: 003111680752 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/16/2014
 
 Page 1
 
--- F.Supp.2d ----, 2014 WL 186310 (M.D.N.C.)
 
(Cite as: 2014 WL 186310 (M.D.N.C.))
 
© 2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
 
Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
 
United States District Court,
 
M.D. North Carolina.
 
Gretchen S. STUART, M.D., et al., Plaintiffs,
 
v.
 
Ralph C. LOOMIS, M.D., et al., Defendants.
 
 No. 1:11
 – 
CV
 – 
804.
 
Jan. 17, 2014.
 
Background:
 Physicians and health care providers  brought action against various government agents in their official capacities, alleging portions of North Carolina's Woman's Right to Know Act that required  providers perform ultrasound and describe images to women seeking an abortion violated their First Amendment speech rights. Parties cross moved for summary judgment.
 
Holdings:
 The District Court, Catherine C. Eagles,  J., held that:
 
(1) heightened scrutiny applied;
 
(2) Act violated the First Amendment; and
 
(3)  providers had third-party standing.
 
Motions granted in part and denied in part
 
West Headnotes
 
[1] Constitutional Law 92 1564
 
92 Constitutional Law
 
92XVIII Freedom of Speech, Expression, and Press
 
92XVIII(A) In General
 
92XVIII(A)3 Particular Issues and Appli-cations in General
 
92k1564 k. Compelled or Forced Speech, Support, or Participation. Most Cited Cases  The First Amendment generally prohibits the government from requiring people to speak its mes-sages. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 1.
 
[2] Constitutional Law 92 1564
 
92 Constitutional Law
 
92XVIII Freedom of Speech, Expression, and Press
 
92XVIII(A) In General
 
92XVIII(A)3 Particular Issues and Appli-cations in General
 
92k1564 k. Compelled or Forced Speech, Support, or Participation. Most Cited Cases  Because mandating speech that a speaker would not otherwise make necessarily alters the content of the speech, speech compelled by the government is typically considered content-based regulation for First Amendment purposes. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 1.
 
[3] Constitutional Law 92 1564
 
92 Constitutional Law
 
92XVIII Freedom of Speech, Expression, and Press
 
92XVIII(A) In General
 
92XVIII(A)3 Particular Issues and Appli-cations in General
 
92k1564 k. Compelled or Forced Speech, Support, or Participation. Most Cited Cases  Content-based speech compelled by the govern-ment is generally subject to strict scrutiny under the First Amendment, even where the compelled speech is limited to factually accurate or non-ideological statements. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 1.
 
[4] Constitutional Law 92 1506
 
Case: 13-4429 Document: 003111680752 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/16/2014

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)//-->