The Oyez Project Virtual Tour of the Supreme Court Building

Abstract

Argument: Wednesday, April 26, 2000
Decision: Wednesday, June 28, 2000
Issues: Civil Rights, Sex Discrimination
Categories: discrimination, first amendment, freedom of association, sexuality
Tags: Rehnquist: Privacy and Personal Autonomy, Rehnquist on iTunes U

Advocates

George A. Davidson (Argued the cause for the petitioners)
Evan Wolfson (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

The Boy Scouts of America revoked former Eagle Scout and assistant scoutmaster James Dale's adult membership when the organization discovered that Dale was a homosexual and a gay rights activist. In 1992, Dale filed suit against the Boy Scouts, alleging that the Boy Scouts had violated the New Jersey statute prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in places of public accommodation. The Boy Scouts, a private, not-for-profit organization, asserted that homosexual conduct was inconsistent with the values it was attempting to instill in young people. The New Jersey Superior Court held that New Jersey's public accommodations law was inapplicable because the Boy Scouts was not a place of public accommodation. The court also concluded that the Boy Scouts' First Amendment freedom of expressive association prevented the government from forcing the Boy Scouts to accept Dale as an adult leader. The court's Appellate Division held that New Jersey's public accommodations law applied to the Boy Scouts because of its broad-based membership solicitation and its connections with various public entities, and that the Boy Scouts violated it by revoking Dale's membership based on his homosexuality. The court rejected the Boy Scouts' federal constitutional claims. The New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that application of New Jersey's public accommodations law did not violate the Boy Scouts' First Amendment right of expressive association because Dale's inclusion would not significantly affect members' abilities to carry out their purpose. Furthermore, the court concluded that reinstating Dale did not compel the Boy Scouts to express any message.

Question

Does the application of New Jersey's public accommodations law violate the Boy Scouts' First Amendment right of expressive association to bar homosexuals from serving as troop leaders?

Conclusion

Yes. In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the Court held that "applying New Jersey's public accommodations law to require the Boy Scouts to admit Dale violates the Boy Scouts' First Amendment right of expressive association." In effect, the ruling gives the Boy Scouts of America a constitutional right to bar homosexuals from serving as troop leaders. Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote for the Court that, "[t]he Boy Scouts asserts that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the values it seeks to instill," and that a gay troop leader's presence "would, at the very least, force the organization to send a message, both to the young members and the world, that the Boy Scouts accepts homosexual conduct as a legitimate form of behavior."

Supreme Court Justice Opinions and Votes (by Seniority)

Sort by Ideology
(More information here)
Decision: 5 votes for Boy Scouts of America, 4 vote(s) against
Legal Provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly
Wrote the majority opinion
Rehnquist
Wrote a dissent
Stevens
Voted with the majority
O'Connor
Voted with the majority
Scalia
Voted with the majority
Kennedy
Wrote a dissent, joined Stevens' dissent
Souter
Voted with the majority
Thomas
Voted with the minority, joined Stevens' dissent, joined Souter's dissent
Ginsburg
Voted with the minority, joined Stevens' dissent, joined Souter's dissent
Breyer
Full Opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist

Cite this page

The Oyez Project, Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000),
available at: <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1999/1999_99_699/>
(last visited ).