King v. Governor of the State of New Jersey

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that bar admission rules are an “an exercise of Pennsylvania’s ‘broad power to establish standards for licensing practitioners and regulating the practice of professions’”
• recognizing that the same studies and position papers relied upon by Defendants showed \substantial\ evidence of the serious health risks accompanying conversion therapy
• noting that “it would be strange indeed to conclude” talk therapy is conduct when “the same words, spoken with the same in- tent” by a student is speech
• explaining that alleged exemptions to a law prohibiting sexual orientation change efforts on minors did not undermine its general applicability because nothing in the record suggested they were equally harmful to minors
• concluding, in the context of a professional speech restriction, that “professional speech should receive the same level of First Amendment protection as that afforded commercial speech[,]” and relying on Central Hudson to provide the appropriate standard
• explaining that a statute criminalizing harassment may be unconstitutional if it “regulates not only conduct ‘solely intending to harass’ but any conduct ‘intending to harass;’ broadly sweeping to regulate a wide variety of expressive speech”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).