Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Preliminary injunction in case challenging California’s ban on gay ‘conversion therapy’ appealed to Ninth Circuit

Conversion therapy cases

By Scottie Thomaston

In dueling decisions, courts differed on whether California’s law banning so-called gay ‘conversion therapy’ could remain in place while challenges to the law proceed in court. In Pickup v. Brown, the district court judge denied the preliminary injunction sought in the case, suggesting that the challengers to the law were unlikely to prevail on the merits. This would mean that at least in the Pickup case, the law was held to remain in force pending the outcome of a final decision on the constitutionality of the act (which is being challenged on First Amendment and other grounds.)

The case has been appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and put on an expedited schedule given the nature of the case. The scheduling order reads:

The briefing schedule shall proceed as follows: the opening brief and excerpts of record are due not later than January 2, 2013; the answering briefs are due January 30, 2013 or 28 days after service of the opening brief, whichever is earlier; and the optional reply brief is due within 14 days after service of the answering briefs. See 9th Cir. R. 3-3(b). All parties on a side are encouraged to join in a single brief to the greatest extent practicable.

The docket number is #12-17681.

h/t Kathleen for this info


  • 1. Bob  |  December 10, 2012 at 4:50 pm

    " Shubb, an appointee of President George H.W. Bush, said he believes the therapists' First Amendment rights could be violated by the law."

    The First Amendment does not guarantee the right to practice medicine. This judge needs to go back to law school.

  • 2. Fluffyskunk  |  December 10, 2012 at 7:47 pm

    They have a First Amendment right to practice conversion therapy as a religious rite (compare the Scienos' Operating Thetan levels, which make you immune to illness and injury and give you teleportation and +5 laser eyes), what they don't have is a First Amendment right to call it an actual psychiatric treatment (any more than the Scienos can market their OT levels as one – not that they would if they could, those guys hate real psychiatry).

  • 3. bayareajohn  |  December 10, 2012 at 7:39 pm

    Marriage can wait without injunction protection for years at a time, while the "right" to practice quackery must be protected with immediate injunctions. Yes, friends, welcome to the level playing field.

Having technical problems? Visit our support page to report an issue!