UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _______________

Nos. 14-1941, 14-3495 ________________

JOHN DOE, by and through Jack Doe and Jane Doe; JACK DOE, individually and on behalf of his son, John Doe; JANE DOE, individually and on behalf of her son, John Doe, Appellants v.

GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

GARDEN STATE EQUALITY, Intervenor-Defendant

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. No. 3-13-cv-06629)

District Judge: Honorable Freda L. Wolfson _____________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) March 19, 2015 Before: SMITH, VANASKIE, SLOVITER, Circuit Judges.

(Opinion filed: April 13, 2015) Mary E. McAlister, Esq. Daniel J. Schmid, Esq. Liberty Counsel P.O. Box 11108 Lynchburg, VA 24506 Anita L. Staver, Esq. Mathew D. Staver, Esq. Demetrios K. Stratis, Esq. Liberty Counsel P.O. Box 540774 Orlando, FL 32854

Counsel for Appellants Robert T. Lougy, Esq. Eric S. Pasternack, Esq. Susan M. Scott, Esq. Office of Attorney General of New Jersey P.O. Box 112 25 Market Street Richard J. Hughes Justice Complex Trenton, NJ 08625

Counsel for Appellee Shireen A. Barday, Esq. David S. Flugman, Esq. Frank M. Holozubiec, Esq. Andrew C. Orr, Esq. Kirkland & Ellis 601 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022

2 Andrew J. Welz, Esq. Kirkland & Ellis 655 15th Street, N.W. Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20005

Counsel for Intervenor-Defendant

3 ________

OPINION OF THE COURT ________

SLOVITER, Circuit Judge.

In King v. Governor of the State of New Jersey, 767 F.3d 216 (3d Cir. 2014), this court rejected a challenge brought by licensed counselors in the State of New Jersey to the constitutionality of Assembly Bill A3371 (“A3371”), a New Jersey statute banning the provision of “sexual orientation change efforts” (“SOCE”) counseling to minors. A similar challenge to the constitutionality of the same statute is before us again, this time by a minor seeking to undergo SOCE counseling and by his parents. As in King, and for the reasons that follow, we reject the present challenge and will affirm the decision of the District Court dismissing Appellants’ complaint.1

1 The District Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we have jurisdiction over the final order of the District Court dated July 31, 2014 dismissing Appellants’ complaint. As we recently reaffirmed, “[w]e review de novo a district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).” Foglia v. Renal Ventures Mgmt., LLC, 754 F.3d 153, 154 n.1 (3d Cir. 2014). We must “accept as true all allegations in the complaint and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from them after construing them

4 I.

We assume the familiarity of the parties with A3371 and our opinion in King.2 In brief, A3371 provides:

in the light most favorable to the nonmovant.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Appellants also filed a separate notice of appeal with respect to the District Court’s March 28, 2014 letter order, which stayed the matter and administratively terminated Appellants’ motion for a preliminary injunction. The impetus behind the March 28, 2014 letter order was a pending petition for a writ of certiorari seeking Supreme Court review of Pickup v. Brown, 740 F.3d 1208 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 2871 (2014), a Ninth Circuit decision addressing issues similar to those raised in the instant case. Appellee