Our Watch with Tim Thompson v. Bonta

682 F.Supp.3d 838

OUR WATCH WITH TIM THOMPSON, Plaintiff, v. Rob BONTA, Defendant.

No. 2:23-cv-00422-DAD-DB

United States District Court, E.D. California

Filed July 18, 2023

Signed July 17, 2023

(Doc. Nos. 12, 13)

Bethany Onishenko, Pro Hac Vice, Advocates for Faith and Freedom, Lowell, AR, Mariah Rose Gondeiro, Advocates for Faith and Freedom, Murrieta, CA, for Plaintiff.

Kathleen Marie Boergers, Nimrod Pitsker Elias, Office of the Attorney General, Oakland, CA, Lily Grace Weaver, Office of The Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, Natalie S. Torres, California Dept. of Justice Office of the Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING, IN PART, DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Dale A. Drozd, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This matter came before the court on July 11, 2023 for a hearing on defendant's motion to dismiss and plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction against defendant Rob Bonta, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the state of California. (Doc. Nos. 12, 13.) Attorney Mariah Rose Gondeiro appeared by video for plaintiff. California Deputy Attorney General Nimrod Pitsker Elias appeared by video on behalf of defendant. For the reasons explained below, the court will grant defendant's motion to dismiss, in part, and deny plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction.

BACKGROUND

In the operative first amended complaint ("FAC"), plaintiff Our Watch with Tim Thompson ("Our Watch") alleges that it is a nonprofit public benefit corporation "committed to protecting family and parental rights, religious liberty, and the right to life across California." (Doc. No. 10 at ¶ 11.) Plaintiff states that it engages in "legislative advocacy, education of California citizens, and mobilization of California citizens to get involved in community events." (Id.) According to plaintiff, its mission consists of "tackling major cultural issues, including the sexual indoctrination of children, critical race theory, and abortion rights," and plaintiff represents that it "firmly believes that transgenderism is a cultural issue that it must deal with in accordance with God's design for every child, as outlined in the Bible." (Id. at ¶ 12.)

Plaintiff brings several constitutional challenges to a recently enacted California statute pertaining to the provision of gender-affirming health care and gender-affirming mental health care to minors. (See id. at 18-21.) The challenged statute is summarized below.

A. California Senate Bill 107

On September 29, 2022, after passing both houses of the California state legislature, Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law Senate Bill 107 ("SB 107"). (Doc. No. 10 at ¶ 34.) SB 107 added and/or amended sections of the California Civil Code, California Code of Civil Procedure, California Family Code, and California Penal Code.¹ 2022 Cal. Legis. Serv. Ch. 810 (West). As previewed above, these additions and amendments pertain to California state law with respect to the provision of gender-affirming health care and gender-affirming mental health care to minors. See id. In defining "gender-affirming health care" and "gender-affirming mental health care," SB 107 relies on the definitions stated in the California Welfare & Institutions Code:

(A) "Gender affirming health care" means medically necessary health care that respects the gender identity of the patient, as experienced and defined by the patient, and may include, but is not limited to, the following:

(i) Interventions to suppress the development of endogenous secondary sex characteristics.

(ii) Interventions to align the patient's appearance or physical body with the patient's gender identity.

(iii) Interventions to alleviate symptoms of clinically significant distress resulting from gender dysphoria, as defined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition.

(B) "Gender affirming mental health care" means mental health care or behavioral health care that respects the gender identity of the patient, as experienced and defined by the patient, and may include, but is not limited to, developmentally appropriate exploration and integration of identity, reduction of distress, adaptive coping, and strategies to increase family acceptance.

Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 16010.2

The legislative history of SB 107 suggests that it was drafted—at least in part— in response to what SB 107's Bill Analysis referred to as "a series of regressive transphobic laws and executive orders . . . adopted in other states that target transgender youth, their parents, and their medical providers . . . [by] impos[ing] civil and/or criminal liability on transgender youth and the adults who assisted them in obtaining gender-affirming care." Cal. B. Analysis, S. Comm., SB 107 (Aug. 30, 2022). That Bill Analysis further states that "many of these laws and orders [from other states] are not limited in geographic scope, meaning the [other] state could attempt to penalize a transgender youth or other person for obtaining gender-affirming care in a state where that care is legal, such as California." Id. In response to those laws, the author of SB 107, state Senator Scott Weiner explained that SB 107 seeks to:

[1] mak[e] it clear that other state's laws that punish people for providing or receiving gender-affirming health care is contrary to the public policy of California . . . .

[2] bar healthcare providers from complying with subpoenas requiring the disclosure of medical information related to gender-affirming health care that interferes with a person's right to allow child to receive said care . . . .

[and 3] prohibit law enforcement agencies from making, or intentionally participating in, the arrest of an individual pursuant to an out-of-state arrest warrant based on another state's law against receiving, or allowing a child to receive, gender-affirming health care.

Id.

In order to accomplish these stated goals, for example, Section 1 of SB 107 creates California Civil Code § 56.109, which provides that healthcare providers "shall not release medical information related to a person or entity allowing a child to receive gender-affirming health care or gender-affirming mental health care in response to any civil action . . . based on another state's law that authorizes a person to bring a civil action against a person or entity that allows a child to receive gender-affirming health care or gender-affirming mental health care." Cal. Civil Code § 56.109(a). Similarly, Section 5 of SB 107 amends California Family Code § 3424 to state that a California court has temporary emergency jurisdiction over child custody determinations "if the child is present in this state and the child has been abandoned or it is necessary in an emergency to protect the child because the child, or a sibling or parent of the child, is subjected to, or threatened with, mistreatment or abuse, or because the child has been unable to obtain gender-affirming health care or gender-affirming mental health care." Cal. Fam. Code § 3424(a) (emphasis added). Finally, Section 9 of SB 107 adds California Penal Code § 819, which forbids state law enforcement agencies from knowingly making or participating in the arrest or extradition of an individual "pursuant to an out-of-state arrest warrant for violation of another state's law against providing, receiving, or allowing a child to receive gender-affirming health care and gender-affirming mental health care in this state, if that care is lawful under the laws of this state, to the fullest extent permitted by federal law." Cal. Penal Code § 819(b).²

B. The Present Action

In its FAC, plaintiff alleges that SB 107 "conflicts with [plaintiff's] mission by allowing children, without parental consent, to change their identity and therefore God's design for their life and by stripping parents of custody." (Doc. No. 10 at ¶ 12.) Plaintiff further alleges that since California's enactment of the law, it has diverted its organizational resources "from its other focus areas like critical race theory and abortion rights [in order to] counteract the harms to parental rights resulting from SB 107." (Id. at ¶ 13.) Specifically, plaintiff represents that in response to SB 107, it has: implemented educational outreach programs inside and outside of California; funded de-transitioning teenagers to come on the organization's podcast to speak on "the issue"; and "hired individuals to warn parents and churches in California and outside of California about the devastating effects of SB 107 and to explain how parents and churches can protect their children." (Id. at ¶¶ 13-14.) Plaintiff alleges that the enactment of SB 107 has prompted it to focus "nearly exclusively on educating parents and churches about transgender issues and the effect on parental rights" and has caused plaintiff to "divert time and attention from other activities that align with its mission." (Id. at ¶ 15.)

Plaintiff initiated this action on March 7, 2023, seeking damages, an order declaring SB 107 unconstitutional on its face, and an injunction preventing further enforcement of SB 107. (Doc. No. 1 at ¶¶ 10, 16.) On April 13, 2023, plaintiff filed its operative FAC, bringing three claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983: (1) violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; (2) violation of the right to familial association under the First and Fourteenth Amendments; and (3) violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Fourth Amendment. (Doc. No. 10 at 18, 20, 21.)

On April 27, 2023, defendant filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's FAC pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. No. 12.) Plaintiff filed its opposition to defendant's pending motion on May 11, 2023, and defendant filed his reply thereto on May 22, 2023. (Doc. Nos. 15, 16.)

On April 27, 2023, plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking an order enjoining defendant from enforcing SB 107. (...