Doe v. Christie, 33 F. Supp. 3d 518

Background

New Jersey enacted A3371 (N.J.S.A. 45:1-54, -55) prohibiting licensed counselors from performing Sexual Orientation Change Efforts (SOCE) on minors; effective August 19, 2013.
Plaintiffs are a minor (John Doe) and his parents (Jack and Jane Doe) who seek SOCE for the minor and challenge A3371 as violating First and Fourteenth Amendment rights; counsel is same as in King v. Christie.
This Court previously upheld A3371 against challenges by therapists in King v. Christie; that decision forms the primary precedent and framework here.
Proceedings were stayed pending the Supreme Court’s resolution of certiorari in Pickup v. Brown; certiorari was denied and the stay was lifted.
Garden State Equality moved to permissively intervene; the Court granted intervention as in King.
The Court resolved motions under Rule 12(b)(6), finding Plaintiffs’ claims implausible and denying preliminary injunction because plaintiffs failed to state viable constitutional claims.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Free Speech — right to receive information	A3371 denies minors the First Amendment right to receive SOCE information during counseling	A3371 regulates professional conduct (therapy), not speech; it does not bar receiving SOCE information outside therapy	Statute regulates conduct not speech; does not bar dissemination of information; no First Amendment violation; rational-basis review applies
Free Exercise of religion	A3371 substantially burdens religious beliefs that sexual orientation can be changed by denying SOCE counseling	Statute is neutral and generally applicable regulation of professional practice and survives rational-basis review	No Free Exercise violation; statute neutral and generally applicable; survives rational basis
Fourteenth Amendment — parental rights to direct upbringing	Parents assert a fundamental right to obtain SOCE for their child and to choose this treatment	State may restrict treatments it reasonably deems harmful or ineffective; parental rights are not absolute	Parents have no constitutional right to demand a specific professional treatment the state reasonably prohibits; claim fails
Intervention (Garden State Equality)	Plaintiffs opposed intervention	Garden State sought permissive intervention to present viewpoint of potential SOCE recipients	Permissive intervention allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b); Court granted intervention

Key Cases Cited

King v. Christie, 981 F. Supp. 2d 296 (D.N.J. 2013) (district court opinion upholding A3371 against therapist challenge)
Pickup v. Brown, 740 F.3d 1208 (9th Cir. 2014) (upholding statute prohibiting SOCE for minors; influential on parental-rights question)
Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) (discusses limits of First Amendment challenges in regulated medical contexts)
Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993) (Free Exercise analysis on neutrality and general applicability)
Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584 (1979) (state authority to protect children’s health and welfare over parental discretion)
Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944) (parental rights are not absolute; state may limit for children’s welfare)
Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997) (state interest in integrity and ethics of medical profession)
Wollschlaeger v. Governor of Florida, 760 F.3d 1195 (11th Cir. 2014) (recognizing state regulation of physician speech as professional regulation)
Nat’l Ass’n for Advancement of Psychoanalysis v. California Bd. of Psychology, 228 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir. 2000) (no substantive due process right to choose particular type of treatment)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard: plausibility requirement)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (affirming Twombly pleading principles)
Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224 (3d Cir. 2008) (motion to dismiss standard)
Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203 (3d Cir. 2009) (pleading standards under Rule 12(b)(6))