Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Pickup v. Brown
Pickup v. Brown, 740 F.3d 1208 (9th Cir. 2013)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 2013-08-29
- Topic
- general
How later courts describe this case
- 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 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”
- 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 apatient 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)
- placing the burdened speech in Casey on the midpoint of the continuum of First Amendment protections
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Pickup v. Brown. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Authority status
- pending
- Cited by
- 71 opinions
Dissent to Order by Judge O’SCANNLAIN; Opinion by Judge GRABER.
ORDER
The opinion filed on August 29, 2013, and published at 728 F.3d 1042, is replaced by the amended opinion filed concurrently with this order. With these amendments, the panel has voted to deny the petitions for panel rehearing and petitions for rehearing en banc.
The full court has been advised of the petitions for rehearing en banc. A judge of the court called for a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. On such vote, a majority of the nonrecused active judges failed to vote in favor of en banc rehearing.
The petitions for panel rehearing and petitions for rehearing en banc are DENIED. No further petitions for panel re