Blatt v. University of Southern California
5 Cal. App. 3d 935 (1970)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Courts will not judicially review the membership decisions of a private, voluntary honorary society unless membership is a practical necessity for the applicant to earn a living in their chosen profession. Furthermore, a promise that a student 'would be eligible' for an honor is not an enforceable promise of admission and does not support a claim for breach of contract or promissory estoppel.
Facts:
- Plaintiff was a night law student at the University of Southern California (USC) from 1961 to 1967.
- The Order of the Coif is a national honorary legal society that elects its members from students in the top 10 percent of their graduating class.
- Representatives of the USC chapter of the Order of the Coif told the plaintiff that if he graduated in the top 10 percent of his class, he 'would be eligible for election to membership.'
- Relying on these representations, the plaintiff dedicated himself to his studies and graduated fourth in his class of 135 students, placing him within the top 10 percent.
- After the plaintiff had begun his studies, the local chapter adopted a new internal policy requiring Law Review work for membership eligibility.
- Plaintiff was informed that this new policy applied only to day students, so he did not pursue a Law Review assignment.
- The Order's selection committee did not elect the plaintiff, citing his lack of Law Review work, while electing seven or eight students with lower scholastic rankings.
- The law school dean acknowledged in a letter that the plaintiff was 'obviously the sort of student who should qualify for election.'
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff filed a complaint for injunctive and declaratory relief against the University of Southern California and the Order of the Coif in a California trial court.
- Plaintiff later filed a second amended complaint.
- Defendants filed a general demurrer to the second amended complaint, arguing it failed to state a valid cause of action.
- The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend and entered a judgment dismissing the plaintiff's action.
- Plaintiff, as appellant, appealed the judgment of dismissal to the California Court of Appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a court have the authority to compel a voluntary honorary society to admit a person who meets the academic requirements for membership, where membership provides professional prestige but is not a practical necessity to practice law?
Opinions:
Majority - Schweitzer, J.
No. A court will not compel a voluntary honorary society to admit a member where membership is not a practical necessity for earning a living. The court distinguished this case from prior rulings involving professional associations because membership in the Order of the Coif is an honor, not a prerequisite to practice law or any legal specialty. It does not affect an individual's fundamental right to work. Intervening in the membership decisions of every voluntary organization that confers some professional advantage would be an overreach of judicial authority. Furthermore, there was no breach of contract or basis for promissory estoppel. The defendants only promised the plaintiff would be 'eligible' for election, not that he would be elected, and he was in fact considered. The plaintiff's extra academic effort was primarily for his own benefit and did not constitute the 'definite and substantial' detriment required for promissory estoppel.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle of judicial non-intervention in the internal affairs of private, voluntary associations, particularly honorary societies. It establishes a clear boundary for judicial review, limiting it to situations where an organization functions as an economic gatekeeper to a profession, a standard known as the 'practical necessity' test. The ruling clarifies that enhanced prestige or general career advantages are insufficient grounds to compel membership. The court's analysis of promissory estoppel also narrows the definition of 'detriment,' suggesting that actions that primarily benefit the promisee, such as achieving academic excellence, do not qualify as substantial reliance.
