Lexplug logoLexplug

Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, & Bisexual Group of Boston

Supreme Court of the United States
(1995)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A state's public accommodations law cannot be applied to compel private citizens who organize a parade to include a group whose message the organizers do not wish to convey, as this would violate the organizers' First Amendment right to free speech.


Facts:

  • Since 1947, the South Boston Allied War Veterans Council (Council), a private association, has organized the annual St. Patrick’s Day-Evacuation Day Parade in South Boston.
  • The Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston (GLIB) was formed to march in the parade to express pride in its members' Irish heritage as openly gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals.
  • In 1992, the Council denied GLIB's application to march in the parade as an identifiable unit.
  • After being forced by a court order to allow GLIB to march in 1992, the Council again denied GLIB's application in 1993.
  • The Council's stated reason for excluding GLIB was that it objected to the message and values the group sought to express, particularly concerning its members' sexual orientation.
  • The parade was generally inclusive and eclectic, featuring a wide variety of themes and participants, but the Council had previously excluded other groups, such as the Ku Klux Klan.

Procedural Posture:

  • The Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston (GLIB) sued the South Boston Allied War Veterans Council (Council) in Massachusetts Superior Court (a state trial court), alleging a violation of the state's public accommodations law.
  • The trial court found the parade to be a public accommodation and ordered the Council to allow GLIB to participate.
  • The Council appealed to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, the state's highest court.
  • The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts affirmed the trial court's order, holding that the parade lacked a specific expressive purpose that would grant it First Amendment protection.
  • The Council petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.

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 the application of a state public accommodations law to require the private organizers of a parade to include a group expressing a message with which the organizers disagree violate the organizers' First Amendment right to freedom of speech?


Opinions:

Majority - Justice Souter

Yes, the application of the state public accommodations law violates the organizers' First Amendment right to freedom of speech. Parades are inherently expressive activities, and the selection of participants is a form of speech itself; therefore, a private parade organizer cannot be compelled by the state to include a message it does not wish to convey. The fundamental rule of First Amendment protection is that a speaker has the autonomy to choose the content of their own message, which includes the choice of what not to say. By requiring the Council to include GLIB, the state was essentially altering the expressive content of the Council's parade and declaring the speech itself to be a public accommodation. This is distinct from cases involving cable operators or shopping centers, as a parade's message is perceived by spectators as a collective whole, and attributing GLIB's message to the Council is highly likely. The state's legitimate interest in eradicating discrimination does not justify infringing on the fundamental right against compelled speech.



Analysis:

This unanimous decision solidifies the principle that parades are a form of protected expressive activity, not merely conduct subject to public accommodation laws. It establishes that the First Amendment protects a private speaker's editorial control over their own message, even from otherwise valid anti-discrimination statutes. The ruling significantly strengthens the right against compelled speech, clarifying that the government cannot force private organizers to include messages they oppose in their own expressive events. This precedent impacts future cases involving conflicts between anti-discrimination laws and the free speech rights of private organizations that engage in expressive activities.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, & Bisexual Group of Boston (1995) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, & Bisexual Group of Boston