Doe v. Christie, 33 F. Supp. 3d 518 (2014), 783 F.3d 150 (2015)

Facts

  • New Jersey enacted Assembly Bill A3371, effective August 19, 2013, codified at N.J. Stat. Ann. §§ 45:1-54, -55, barring state-licensed counselors from providing “sexual orientation change efforts” (SOCE) to minors.
  • The legislature acted based on findings that SOCE (sometimes called conversion therapy) had doubtful benefit and could cause harm to minors.
  • The statute regulates the practice of SOCE by licensed professionals with minor clients; it does not bar discussing SOCE in other contexts (for example, providing general information, public speaking, or religious counseling outside the licensed-therapy setting).
  • John Doe, a minor, and his parents Jack and Jane Doe sought SOCE counseling for John but could not obtain it from licensed providers in New Jersey because of A3371.
  • The Does sued Governor Christopher J. Christie in his official capacity, seeking a declaration that A3371 was unconstitutional and a preliminary injunction to stop enforcement.
  • The Governor moved to dismiss; the Does moved for a preliminary injunction.
  • Garden State Equality intervened as a defendant in support of the statute.
  • The district court relied in part on its earlier related decision addressing A3371 in a suit brought by therapists (King v. Christie) and concluded A3371 was constitutional.
  • The Does appealed, and the Third Circuit affirmed.

Issues

  1. Does A3371 violate the First Amendment by restricting speech and the alleged right of minors and parents to receive information or counseling in the form of SOCE from licensed professionals?
  2. Does A3371 violate the Free Exercise Clause because the Does sought SOCE in connection with their religious beliefs?
  3. Does A3371 violate parents’ substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to direct the care and medical or mental-health treatment of their child?

Decision

  • The district court granted the Governor’s motion to dismiss the complaint, denied the Does’ motion for a preliminary injunction, and allowed Garden State Equality to intervene.
  • The district court treated A3371 primarily as regulation of licensed professional treatment, not a general ban on discussing ideas, and rejected strict-scrutiny review.
  • The district court rejected the First Amendment “right to receive information” theory as applied to a prohibited treatment performed by licensed professionals on minors; the statute left other avenues open for obtaining information and religious guidance.
  • The district court held A3371 is neutral and generally applicable and therefore did not violate the Free Exercise Clause merely because it burdened conduct associated with religious motivation.
  • The district court rejected the parental-rights claim, concluding that parental authority does not extend to obtaining a particular treatment for a minor when the state has reasonably determined the treatment poses risks and lacks sufficient benefit.
  • The Third Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment upholding A3371 and rejecting the Does’ First Amendment, Free Exercise, and parental due process challenges.

Legal Principles

  • A state may regulate the professional conduct of licensed mental-health providers, including barring a specific counseling practice for minors when the legislature has a rational basis to view the practice as harmful or ineffective.
  • The First Amendment does not create a constitutional entitlement to receive a prohibited professional treatment from a licensed provider simply by framing the treatment as speech or information.
  • A neutral, generally applicable law regulating professional services does not violate the Free Exercise Clause solely because it burdens conduct tied to religious beliefs; heightened scrutiny is not triggered absent targeting of religion.
  • Parents have significant liberty interests in directing the upbringing and care of their children, but those interests do not guarantee access to a particular medical or mental-health intervention that the state has disallowed for minors on health and safety grounds.

Conclusion

Doe v. Christie upheld New Jersey’s A3371 ban on licensed counselors providing SOCE to minors, holding that the statute permissibly regulates professional treatment for the protection of children and does not violate the First Amendment (including any claimed right to receive SOCE), the Free Exercise Clause, or parents’ substantive due process right to direct their child’s care; the district court’s dismissal and denial of preliminary relief were affirmed on appeal.