High court rulings in California matters: Gay therapy, oyster farm, fuel standards
High court turns down California oyster farm
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has refused to hear an appeal from a popular oyster farm in Northern California that is facing closure.
The justices did not comment Monday in leaving in place lower court rulings against Drakes Bay Oyster Co.
The company operates in the Point Reyes National Seashore. Then-Interior Secretary Ken Salazar declined to renew its lease when it expired in 2012. Salazar said the waters of Drakes Estero should be returned to wilderness status.
Lower courts have allowed the oyster farm to keep operating while the case was pending.
The case is Drakes Bay Oyster Co. v. Jewell, 13-1244.
Court rejects challenge to law banning gay therapy
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has rejected a challenge to California’s law that bars mental counseling aimed at turning gay minors straight.
The justices on Monday let stand an appeals court ruling that said the state’s ban on so-called conversion therapy for minors doesn’t violate the free speech rights of licensed counselors and patients seeking treatment.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last year that California lawmakers properly showed that efforts to change sexual orientation were outside the scientific mainstream and have been rejected for good reason.
Liberty Counsel, a Christian legal aid group, had challenged the law along with other supporters of the therapy. They argue that lawmakers have no scientific proof the therapy does harm.
Court won’t hear dispute over Calif. fuel standard
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court won’t hear a challenge to California’s first-in-the-nation mandate requiring fuel producers to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The justices on Monday turned away appeals from fuel makers that say the law discriminates against out-of-state producers.
The mandate requires petroleum refiners and fuel distributors to make cleaner-burning fuels for the California market.
Out-of-state oil refiners and ethanol companies say the law provides an unfair advantage to in-state producers by giving a higher “carbon-intensity score” to fuels transported from other states.
The state says the law simply offers incentives for companies that make cleaner-burning fuels.
A U.S. district judge agreed with the challengers. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, saying the law gives all fuel makers options to get their product to market.
Copyright 2014 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.