About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

41 W. St. U. L. Rev. 299 (2013-2014)
Pickup v. Brown (Consolidated with Welch v. Brown) - Ninth Circuit

handle is hein.journals/wsulr41 and id is 311 raw text is: Pickup v. Brown (Consolidated With Welch v. Brown) - Ninth Circuit HEADLINE: Ninth Circuit Affirms the Denial of a Preliminary Injunction for California Senate Bill 1172 Prohibiting Mental Health Providers' Use of Sexual Orientation Change Efforts. AREA OF LAW: Civil rights; First Amendment ISSUE(S) PRESENTED: Whether California Senate Bill 1172 (SB 1172) 1) violates mental health providers' First Amendment right to free speech; 2) implicates mental health providers' freedom of association rights; 3) is void for vagueness or overbreadth; or 4) infringes upon parents' fundamental right to make important medical decisions for their children. BRIEF SUMMARY: In Pickup v. Brown, plaintiffs David Pickup, et al. (Plaintiff), appealed from the district court denial of injunctive relief as to SB 1172. In Welch v. Brown, defendant Edmund Brown, on behalf of the State of California appealed the district court's grant of injunctive relief as to SB 1172. The Ninth Circuit granted unqualified review of SB 1172 to resolve the constitutionality of the law, which prohibits California-licensed mental health providers from engaging in Sexual Orientation Change Efforts (SOCE) with minor patients. The Ninth Circuit found that because SB 1172 largely regulates conduct, with speech regulation only incidental, rational basis review was appropriate. It held that the legislature has a legitimate interest in protecting the well-being of minors that is rationally supported by SB 1172. The Court further found that the doctor-patient relationship is neither an intimate human relationship nor an association for the purpose of engaging in activities protected by the First Amendment, thus is not protected by mental health providers' freedom of association rights. Lastly, the Ninth Circuit rejected the plaintiffs vagueness and overbreadth arguments, and found that despite parents' fundamental right to make important medical decisions for their children, parents do not have a right to opt for treatments the legislature deems harmful.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most