Pickup v. Brown

holding that a law prohibiting mental health providers from providing sexual orientation change efforts therapy to minors regulated conduct | noting that “outside the doctor-patient relationship, doctors are constitutionally equivalent to soapbox orators and pamphleteers, and their speech receives robust protection under the First Amendment” | noting that “outside the doctor-patient relationship, doctors are constitutionally equivalent to soapbox orators and pamphleteers, and their speech receives robust protection under the First Amendment” | noting that parents cannot compel a state to accept their views “of what therapy is safe and effective for minors” | explaining that the policy at issue in 9 Conant “prohibited speech wholly apart from the actual provision 10 of treatment” | noting that “outside the doctor-patient relationship, doctors are constitutionally equivalent to soapbox orators and pamphleteers, and their speech receives robust protection under the First Amendment” | explaining that the California law did not prevent mental health providers “from expressing their views to patients, whether children or adults, about SOCE, homosexuality, or any other topic” or from “recommending SOCE to patients, whether children or adults” | holding only that “[a] doctor may not counsel a patient to rely on quack medicine” but recognizing that a doctor may talk to patients about quack medicine such as SOCE (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks omitted) | holding only that “[a] doctor may not counsel a patient to rely on quack medicine” but recognizing that a doctor may talk to patients about quack medicine such as SOCE (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks omitted) | holding only that “[a] doctor may not counsel a patient to rely on quack medicine” but recognizing that a doctor may talk to patients about quack medicine such as SOCE (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks omitted) | holding only that “[a] doctor may not counsel a- patient to rely on quack medicine” but recognizing that a doctor may talk to patients about quack medicine such as SOCE (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks omitted) | explaining that the California law did not prevent mental health providers “from expressing their views to patients, whether children or adults, about SOCE, homosexuality, or any other topic” or from “recommending SOCE to patients, whether children or adults” | placing the burdened speech in Casey on the midpoint of the continuum of First Amendment protections | placing the burdened speech in Casey on the midpoint of the continuum of First Amendment protections | holding professional speech is viewed "along a continuum" | upholding a similar ban, again on the rationale that it regulates conduct, not speech | holding professional speech is viewed “along a continuum” | placing Casey at the midpoint on the continuum of First Amendment protections | placing Casey at the midpoint on the continuum of First Amendment protections | placing Casey at the midpoint on the continuum of First Amendment protections | finding that conversion therapy ban regulated conduct | finding that conversion therapy ban regulated conduct | “[T]he law allows discussions about treatment, recommendations to obtain treatment, and expressions of opinions about [sexual orientation change efforts] and homosexuality.” | “Pursuant to its police power, California has authority to regulate licensed mental health providers’ administration of therapies that the legislature has deemed harmful.” | "[T]he presence in a suit of even one party with standing suffices to make a claim justiciable." | "The Supreme Court has made clear that First Amendment protection does not apply to conduct that is not 'inherently expressive.' " | “[T]he law allows discussions about treatment, recommendations to obtain treatment, and expressions of opinions about [sexual orientation change efforts] and homosexuality.” | “[O]utside the doctor-patient relationship, doctors are constitutio