Doe v. Christie
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
33 F. Supp. 3d 518 (2014), 783 F.3d 150 (2015)

- Written by Katrina Sumner, JD
Facts
New Jersey Assembly Bill Number A3371 (the bill) prohibited licensed counselors from providing sexual-orientation change efforts, a therapy also referred to as gay-conversion treatment, to minors. This therapy was regarded as being of doubtful benefit and possibly harmful to children. Professional counselors still could provide information about the therapy to a client or lecture about the therapy at a conference, for example, but they could not practice it. John Doe and his parents (plaintiffs) wanted to have John receive the prohibited therapy, but he could not because of the bill. John Doe and his parents sued New Jersey Governor Chris Christie (defendant), pursuing a declaration that the bill was not constitutional and seeking a preliminary injunction to halt the operation of the bill. First, John and his parents alleged that the bill violated their freedom of speech by infringing on their fundamental right to receive information, which they regarded as naturally flowing from the right to speak freely. John and his parents also alleged that the bill, as a regulation of their rights under the First Amendment, was subject to the heightened standard of strict scrutiny. Governor Christie rejected this claim on the ground that the bill did not target speech and only regulated the conduct of licensed professionals, which a state was permitted to do, and which met the applicable lesser standard of rational basis. Second, John and his parents claimed the bill violated the free exercise of their religious belief that it was possible to change an attraction to the same sex and related behavior. John and his parents alleged the bill prevented them from receiving spiritual advice. Finally, John and his parents asserted that the bill violated the parents’ Fourteenth Amendment right to the care and control of their child, which gave them the right to choose the medical care that was best for John. Governor Christie responded that the Fourteenth Amendment does not give parents a right to choose medical treatments for their children that a state has recognized as detrimental.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Wolfson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.