The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled on two cases involving California’s law banning so-called LGBT ‘conversion therapy’. The appeals court has reversed a grant of a preliminary injunction in one challenge, and it has affirmed denial of a preliminary injunction in another. This means the law will be in effect during the proceedings. The case is remanded to the district court. While the unanimous opinion resolves the preliminary injunctions, the court used a standard of review that likely means there’s nothing for the district court to do:
Although we generally review for abuse of discretion a district court’s decision to grant or deny a preliminary injunction, we may undertake plenary review of the issues if a district court’s ruling “‘rests solely on a premise as to the applicable rule of law, and the facts are established or of no controlling relevance.’” Gorbach v. Reno, 219 F.3d 1087, 1091 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (quoting Thornburgh v. Am. Coll. of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, 476 U.S. 747, 755–57 (1986)). Because those conditions are met here, we undertake plenary review and hold that SB 1172, as a regulation of professional conduct, does not violate the free speech rights of SOCE practitioners or minor patients, is neither vague nor overbroad, and does not violate parents’ fundamental rights. Accordingly, we reverse the order granting preliminary relief in Welch and affirm the denial of preliminary relief in Pickup.
In a footnote, the Ninth Circuit suggests the district court should address the religious freedom claim in the first instance.
Various groups are challenging the law on First Amendment and other grounds. The decision is summarized: READ HERE