# Pickup v. Brown

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · August 29, 2013 · 740 F.3d 1208

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8412731

## Case

- **Full name:** David H. PICKUP Christopher H. Rosick Joseph Nicolosi Robert Vazzo National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, a Utah non-profit organization American Association of Christian Counselors, a Virginia non-profit association Jack Doe 1, Parent of John Doe 1 Jane Doe 1, Parent of John Doe 1 John Doe 1, a minor, guardian ad litem Jane Doe, guardian ad litem Jack Doe Jack Doe 2, Parent of John Doe 2 Jane Doe 2, Parent of John Doe 2 John Doe 2, a minor, guardian ad litem Jack Doe, guardian ad litem Jane Doe v. Edmund G. BROWN, Jr., Governor of the State of California, in his official capacity Anna M. Caballero, Secretary of the California State and Consumer Services Agency, in her official capacity Sharon Levine, President of the Medical Board of California, in her official capacity Kim Madsen, Executive Officer of the California Board of Behavioral Sciences, in her official capacity Michael Erickson, President of the California Board of Psychology, in his official capacity, and Equality California, Intervenor-Defendant-Appellee. Donald Welch Anthony Duk Aaron Bitzer v. Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Governor of the State of California, in his official capacity Anna M. Caballero, Secretary of California State and Consumer Services Agency, in her official capacity Denise Brown, Case Manager, Director of Consumer Affairs, in her official capacity Christine Wietlisbach, Patricia Lock Dawson, Samara Ashley, Harry Douglas, Julia Johnson, Sarita Kohli, Renee Lonner, Karen Pines, Christina Wong, in their official capacities as members of the California Board of Behavioral Sciences Sharon Levine, Michael Bishop, Silvia Diego, Dev Gnanadev, Reginald Low, Denise Pines, Janet Salomonson, Gerrie Schipske, David Serrano Sewell, Barbara Yaroslavsky, in their official capacities as members of the Medical Board of California
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** August 29, 2013
- **Citations:** 740 F.3d 1208
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Judges:** Christen, Graber, Kozinski, Scannlain
- **Cited by:** 62 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Abrogated by National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, 138 S. Ct. 2361 (2018).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 1
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8412731

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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)
- 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”

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8412731. Public record. Not legal advice.