530 U.S. 640 (2000)
James Dale entered scouting in 1978 at the age of eight by joining Monmouth Council’s Cub Scout Pack 142. He became a Boy Scout in 1981. Dale achieved the rank of Eagle Scout in 1988 after earning 25 merit badges and being inducted into the Order of the Arrow.1
In 1989, Dale applied for and received approval for adult membership in the Boy Scouts. He served as an assistant scoutmaster for Troop 73 in Matawan, New Jersey.2
Around the same time, Dale’s position as co-president of the Lesbian/Gay Alliance at Rutgers University was publicized in a July 1990 newspaper interview. Later that month, the Boy Scouts sent Dale a letter revoking his adult membership. The letter stated that his membership was inconsistent with the values and standards of the Boy Scouts of America. It explained that the organization specifically forbids membership to homosexuals.3
Dale responded by filing a complaint in New Jersey Superior Court against the Boy Scouts and the Monmouth Council. He alleged that the revocation violated the New Jersey public accommodations statute prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The Superior Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Boy Scouts.4
The New Jersey Supreme Court ultimately held that the Boy Scouts is a place of public accommodation subject to the law and that Dale’s expulsion violated the statute.5 The Boy Scouts petitioned for a writ of certiorari. The United States Supreme Court granted the petition to determine whether the application of New Jersey’s public accommodations law in this case violates the Boy Scouts’ First Amendment right of expressive association.6
Whether the application of New Jersey’s public accommodations law to require the Boy Scouts of America to readmit James Dale as an assistant scoutmaster violates the Boy Scouts’ First Amendment right of expressive association?7
The forced inclusion of an unwanted person in a group infringes the group’s freedom of expressive association if the presence of that person affects in a significant way the group’s ability to advocate public or private viewpoints.8 Infringements on that right may be justified by regulations adopted to serve compelling state interests, unrelated to the suppression of ideas, that cannot be achieved through means significantly less restrictive of associational freedoms.9
Yes. The Boy Scouts engages in expressive activity by instilling values in young people through the Scout Oath and Law.10 The organization interprets the requirements to be morally straight and clean as excluding homosexual conduct.11 Dale’s inclusion as an avowed homosexual and gay rights activist would significantly affect the Boy Scouts’ ability to express its viewpoint.
His presence would force the organization to send a message that it accepts such conduct.12 The state’s interest in eliminating discrimination, while substantial, does not justify this severe intrusion on the Boy Scouts’ associational rights.13
The application of New Jersey’s public accommodations law violates the Boy Scouts’ First Amendment right of expressive association.14
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justices Souter, Ginsburg, And Breyer
Justice Stevens, joined by Justices Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, dissented. He concluded that the Boy Scouts does not have a clear and unequivocal message that homosexual conduct is immoral.15 The organization’s literature and policies are ambiguous on the issue.
The Boy Scouts has had a policy of not inquiring into the sexual orientation of its members.16 Even if the Boy Scouts did have such a message, Dale’s inclusion would not significantly affect the Boy Scouts’ ability to express that message. Dale has an exemplary record as a Scout.17
The state’s interest in eliminating discrimination is substantial and justifies the law’s application.18
Joined by Justices Ginsburg And Breyer
Justice Souter joined in Justice Stevens' dissent. He noted that BSA has disclaimed any argument that Dale's past or future actions, as distinct from his unapologetic declaration of sexual orientation, would justify his exclusion from BSA.19 The right of expressive association does not turn on the popularity of the views advanced by a group that claims protection.20
To require less, and to allow exemption from a public accommodations statute based on any individual's difference from an alleged group ideal, however expressed and however inconsistently claimed, would convert the right of expressive association into an easy trump of any antidiscrimination law.21