Lexplug logoLexplug

Boy Scouts of America v. Dale

Supreme Court of the United States
530 U.S. 640, 120 S.Ct. 2446, 147 L.Ed.2d 554 (2000)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Forcing a private, expressive association to accept a member whose presence would significantly affect the group's ability to advocate its viewpoints violates the First Amendment's right of expressive association.


Facts:

  • James Dale was an exemplary member of the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) from childhood, eventually earning the rank of Eagle Scout in 1988.
  • In 1989, the BSA approved Dale's application for adult membership as an assistant scoutmaster.
  • While attending Rutgers University, Dale acknowledged he was gay and became co-president of the university's Lesbian/Gay Alliance.
  • In 1990, a newspaper published an article that identified Dale as the co-president of the Lesbian/Gay Alliance.
  • After seeing the newspaper article, the BSA's Monmouth Council revoked Dale's adult membership.
  • The Council informed Dale that the BSA's standards for leadership "specifically forbid membership to homosexuals."
  • The BSA asserts that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the values in its Scout Oath, particularly the pledge to be "morally straight."

Procedural Posture:

  • James Dale filed a complaint against the Boy Scouts in the New Jersey Superior Court (a court of first instance), alleging a violation of the state's public accommodations law.
  • The trial court granted summary judgment for the Boy Scouts, holding the law did not apply and that the First Amendment protected the BSA's decision.
  • Dale, as appellant, appealed to the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division (an intermediate appellate court), which reversed the trial court.
  • The Boy Scouts, as appellant, appealed to the New Jersey Supreme Court (the state's highest court), which affirmed the appellate court's judgment in favor of Dale.
  • The Boy Scouts of America successfully petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.

Locked

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 applying New Jersey's public accommodations law to require the Boy Scouts of America to reinstate an avowed homosexual assistant scoutmaster violate the organization's First Amendment right of expressive association?


Opinions:

Majority - Chief Justice Rehnquist

Yes. Applying New Jersey's public accommodations law to force the Boy Scouts to accept Dale violates the organization's First Amendment right of expressive association. The First Amendment protects the right to associate for expressive purposes, which necessarily includes a freedom not to associate. The BSA is an expressive association that seeks to instill a system of values in young people. The court must give deference to the BSA's sincere assertion that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the values of being 'morally straight' and 'clean.' The presence of Dale, an avowed homosexual and gay rights activist, as an assistant scoutmaster would force the organization to send a message that it accepts homosexual conduct as a legitimate form of behavior, a message contrary to its avowed beliefs. This forced inclusion would significantly burden the BSA's ability to express its chosen message, and the state's interest in eradicating discrimination does not justify such a severe intrusion on the organization's constitutional rights.


Dissenting - Justice Stevens

No. New Jersey's law does not violate the BSA's constitutional rights because the BSA has not demonstrated that it has a clear, consistent, and expressive policy against homosexuality that would be burdened by Dale's inclusion. An independent review of the BSA's official literature, such as the Scout Oath and Scoutmaster Handbook, reveals no explicit condemnation of homosexuality; in fact, the BSA's policy is to steer sexuality questions to parents and religious leaders. The BSA's claimed anti-homosexual viewpoint appears to be a position adopted for litigation rather than a core, expressive tenet of the organization. Unlike the parade in Hurley, Dale's mere presence as a scoutmaster does not constitute a specific, cognizable message that would be attributed to the BSA. The Court's decision to grant total deference to the BSA's assertion creates a shield for discrimination based on prejudice rather than a genuine protection of expressive activity.


Dissenting - Justice Souter

No. To claim the protection of expressive association against an anti-discrimination law, an organization must show it has adopted and advocated an unequivocal position over time through its customary channels. The BSA has failed to do so regarding sexual orientation. Allowing a group to claim an exemption based on an inconsistently claimed or vaguely expressed ideal would convert the right of expressive association into an easy trump of any antidiscrimination law. While a group's right to expressive association does not depend on the popularity of its views, it does depend on the group actually expressing those views clearly and consistently, which the BSA has not done.



Analysis:

This decision significantly strengthened the First Amendment right of expressive association, establishing that a private organization's right to control its message can outweigh a state's interest in enforcing anti-discrimination laws. The Court's holding created a high level of deference to an organization's own assertions about its beliefs and what would impair its expression. This precedent allows private groups with an expressive purpose to exclude members whose identity or advocacy undermines the group's stated values, creating a notable exception to the reach of public accommodation laws and affecting the balance between civil rights and First Amendment freedoms.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"