Zachary Figueroa American Con. Law 16 May 2012 Case Brief Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S.

640 (2000) Facts of the Case This case documents the Courts judgment in regard to a private organizations right to a certain level of freedom of association. The Boy Scouts of America is an established private, non-profit organization that has been working to educate and instill values in boys and their families for over 100 years. The organization adheres to a certain value system that it works to promote. James Dale, a participating Scoutmaster was expelled from his troop and the organization when it became known that Dale was homosexual and a contributing activist in the Gay/Lesbian community. On the basis of New Jerseys public accommodations law, Dale argued discrimination of his sexual orientation, which was expressly forbidden. The New Jersey Superior Court favored the Boy Scouts, holding that the organization is distinctly a private group. However, the New Jersey appellate court agreed that the accommodations law did stand and the New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed this application. The Law The United States Constitution Amendment I. The New Jersey Public Accommodations Law Legal Questions 1. Does the New Jersey Court decision and the public accommodations law violate the Boy Scouts First Amendment rights to freedom of association in its dismissal of Dale from serving as a Scout Master? Yes 2. Do private organizations have the right to selectively associate their organization with others? Yes Opinion of the Court (Justice Rehnquist) The Court is of the opinion the New Jersey public accommodations law does in fact violate the Boy Scouts right to freedom of association. Rehnquist uses the Robert v United State Jaycess (1984) case as his basis for establishing the organizations Frist Amendment protection. The forced inclusion of an unwanted person in a group infringes the groups freedom of expressive association if the presence of that person affects in a significant way the groups ability to advocate public or private viewpoints. The Court affirms that it is not its role to infringe upon a private organizations right to express their views. Furthermore requiring the organization to adhere to this type of regulation would necessitate that they essentially adopt the stance of accepting and promoting homosexuality, which is expressly contradictory to their established values. The Court reversed the New Jersey decision in favor of the Boy Scouts. Dissenting Opinion (Justice Steven, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer) Justice Stevens in his dissent unabashedly goes after the Boy Scouts organization and makes the claim that their dismissal of Dale is discrimination of the homosexual community. Further he associates this discrimination as being directly contradictory to the values that the organization works to instill. Stevens adheres to Justice Brandeis comments from a previous case, But in the exercise of this high power, we must be ever on our guard, lest we erect our prejudices into legal principles. The dissent holds that the New Jersey State Law was in fact a valid protection from establishing or promoting prejudice; however, the majority opinion in its decision directly supports such a discrimination of homosexuals.

Zachary Figueroa American Con. Law 16 May 2012 Case Brief Evaluation I do not agree with discrimination of homosexual people or hateful/hurtful activity often associated with protests against LGBT community. However, I am inclined to agree with the opinion of the Court and claim that the Court or State does not have the right to regulate the internal actions of a private organization. In this case regarding Boy Scouts and others involving churches that will not perform civil unions I cannot agree the government has any right to require them to represent something that is clearly contradictory to their values.