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”
How later courts described this case
- 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)
- 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”
- situating speech by professionals that occurs within the confines of a professional relationship at the midpoint on a continuum between speech by a professional to the public, which receives “robust protection under the First Amendment,” and speech by a professional which is “merely incidental” to the conduct of a profession, and “subject to only rational basis review”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Abrogated by National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, 138 S. Ct. 2361 (2018)
740 F.3d 1208, 1229 (9th Cir. 2014) (finding that conversion therapy ban regulated conduct), abrogated in part by NIFLA, 585 U.S. at 767
Distinguished
Distinguished by Dr. Bernd Wollschlaeger v. Governor of the State of Florida, 848 F.3d 1293 (2017)
In any event, Pickup is distinguishable on its facts and does not speak to the issues before us.
The opinion
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 *1215 hearing or petitions for rehearing en banc shall be entertained.