Board of Directors of Rotary International v. Rotary Club of Duarte
95 L. Ed. 2d 474, 1987 U.S. LEXIS 5218, 481 U.S. 537 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Applying a state's public accommodations law to require a large, non-selective, business-oriented private organization to admit women as members does not violate the First Amendment right of private or expressive association, as the state's compelling interest in eliminating gender discrimination justifies any minimal infringement on members' associational rights.
Facts:
- Rotary International is a worldwide organization of local clubs composed of business and professional men, with a constitution that limits membership exclusively to men.
- The organization's purpose is humanitarian service, but its membership system is designed to create a cross-section of each community's business and professional life, and members often derive significant business advantages from participation.
- In 1977, the Rotary Club of Duarte, a local chapter in California, admitted three women as active members in contravention of the international organization's constitution.
- In response, Rotary International enforced its male-only membership rule by revoking the Duarte Club's charter and terminating its membership in the international organization.
Procedural Posture:
- The Rotary Club of Duarte and two of its female members sued Rotary International in the California Superior Court (a state trial court), alleging a violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act.
- After a bench trial, the trial court entered judgment for Rotary International, finding that Rotary Clubs were not 'business establishments' under the Act.
- The Duarte Club and its members, as appellants, appealed to the California Court of Appeal, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that Rotary Clubs are business establishments subject to the Unruh Act and that applying the law did not violate Rotary International's First Amendment rights.
- The California Supreme Court, the state's highest court, denied a petition for review from Rotary International.
- Rotary International, as appellant, then appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States.
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 the application of California's Unruh Civil Rights Act to require Rotary Clubs to admit women members violate the First Amendment rights of freedom of private and expressive association?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Powell
No. The application of California's Unruh Act to Rotary Clubs does not violate the First Amendment because the state's compelling interest in eradicating gender discrimination justifies the minimal intrusion on the members' associational rights. Analyzing the two protected forms of association established in Roberts v. United States Jaycees, the Court found neither was unconstitutionally burdened. First, the right of private association does not protect Rotary Clubs, as they are large, not selective, and conduct their activities in a public-facing manner; the relationships between members are not the kind of intimate human relationships that warrant constitutional protection. Second, the right of expressive association is not significantly infringed because the Unruh Act does not require the clubs to alter their core purposes of humanitarian service or high ethical standards, and admitting women would not impede the members' ability to carry out these activities. In fact, admitting women could enhance the club's goal of representing a true cross-section of community leaders. Therefore, the state's compelling interest in ensuring women have equal access to leadership skills and business contacts outweighs any slight burden on the members' expressive association rights.
Analysis:
This decision, following the precedent set in Roberts v. United States Jaycees, solidifies the legal principle that states can apply public accommodation and anti-discrimination laws to large, quasi-commercial private organizations without violating the First Amendment. It reinforces that the right of private association is limited to truly intimate relationships and does not shield large, inclusive, business-oriented groups from state regulation. The ruling had a significant practical impact, compelling numerous other service clubs with discriminatory membership policies (such as the Kiwanis and Lions Clubs) to open their doors to women, thereby broadening women's access to important networks for professional and business development.
Unlock the full brief for Board of Directors of Rotary International v. Rotary Club of Duarte