Boy Scouts Of America Vs. Dale Case Study

Boy Scouts of America v. James Dale has been one of the most controversial cases of the 21st century. The 1st Amendment rights of private organizations were challenged as The Boy Scouts of America banned a former leader and Eagle Scout after learning that he, James Dale, was openly homosexual and a gay rights activist. James Dale then sued the Boy Scouts for violation of a New Jersey’s law that protects individuals against discrimination. The case worked its way up the Supreme Court and was decided that the Boy Scouts have the right to not accept homosexuals through their 1st Amendment right of expressive association because the leader would set a bad example and not represent scouting values. The court also ruled that Scouts could ban homosexuals

since they are a private organization. (Boy Scouts, 2017) This case challenged the 1st Amendment rights of the Boy Scouts and their right to decline a homosexual based on expressive association (Boy Scouts, 2017). Therefore the Constitutional question is if the New Jersey public accommodations law infringes on the Boy Scout’s 1st Amendment right to not allow homosexual troop leaders from having membership.
James Dale was a former Assistant Scoutmaster and Eagle Scout for his troop in New Jersey. After the Boy Scouts discovered that Dale was a homosexual and an activist for gay rights, Dale’s membership was revoked from Scouting. Dale then sued the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) alleging that they violated the New Jersey statue of prohibiting discrimination in places of public accommodation. The Boy Scouts responded by saying that homosexuality was inconsistent with the values that scouting is trying teach to kids. Take note that the Boy Scout Law and Oath are made to remind scouts of values they should live up to in their daily lives and include characteristics such as “morally straight.” The New Jersey Superior Court decided that the New Jersey anti-discrimination law did not apply to the BSA because the organization is private and invaded their 1st Amendment right of expressive association. The Appellate court then decided that the BSA violated New Jersey’s discrimination laws because the organization’s members are so broad and is connected with many public institutes. The New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision stating that the BSA’s 1st Amendment rights were not violated and that letting Dale back into Scouts would not affect the overall message of the BSA. (Boy Scouts, 2017)
The Supreme Court decided with a close 5-4 majority siding with the Boy Scouts of America. The majority opinion was delivered by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist. Rehnquist’s opinion argued that being forced to let homosexual leaders in the troop “violates the Boy Scouts' 1st Amendment right of expressive association." Therefore the Boy Scouts do not have to let anyone in that will project a message that does not line up with the Scout’s organization beliefs. (Boy Scouts, 2017) There was no concurring opinion in this court decision.
The dissenting opinion was delivered by Justice Stevens and joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Souter.

Justice John Paul Stevens believed that by allowing the Boy Scouts to ban homosexuals, the Supreme Court is allowing the organization to be superior over the New Jersey anti-discrimination laws in place. The judges all agreed that the Boy Scouts have a right to advocate their opinions as a group. However, Souter claims that the Boy Scouts should not be considered to have an expressive association case because the organization does not specifically make sexual orientation a topic to be advocated against. Steven’s acknowledged that the Boy Scouts have a list of morals to live by in their Scout Oath and Law, and that none of the principals such as “morally strait” or to be “clean” to refer to homosexuality. Therefore without expressive association being questioned, this case simply deals with anti-discrimination against a sexual orientation. (Boy Scouts,

2000)
There are some court cases that are actually similar to Boy Scouts of America v. Dale. The case Hurley v. Irish American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston is a similar case to Boy Scouts of America v. Dale that was presented to the Supreme Court in 1995. Hurley v. Irish is a case arguing if a Massachusetts State mandate requiring the Boston Veterans Council to include Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual members in its parade violates the Council’s 1st and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The Supreme Court unanimously decided that because the parade was organized by private citizens, that mandating the citizens to include people that the organizers do not wish to associate with violates the 1st Amendment Rights of the private organizers ("Hurley v. Irish American Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc. ," 2017).
Another relevant precedent case prior to Boy Scouts of America v.

Dale is the case Roberts v. US Jaycees. In this case two chapters of the Jaycees organization admitted women as full members when they are supposed to have limited associate membership under a Minnesota state law. The Supreme Court unanimously decided that the Jaycee chapters did not have distinct characteristics that allowed them to exclude women. The court also found that the Minnesota law did not discriminate against women ("Roberts v. United States Jaycees," 2017). Therefore this case emphasizes difference between being a private organization with distinct characteristics such as the Boy Scouts and a normal

organization.
The Boy Scouts of America v. Dale case has had long lasting effects on private organizations such as the Scouts in the 21st century. The main reason organizations like the Boy Scouts can bar homosexuals or women is because they are a private organization, not public. A great example of a similar case would be Virginia Military Institute having to accept women into their school because VMI is a public university. The Supreme Court siding in favor of the Boy Scouts shows a private organization exercising their 1st Amendment right of expressive association. However in recent years the BSA has actually decided to not deny someone membership based on their listed gender (Chokshi, 2017). A large organization such as the Boy Scouts accepting homosexual and transgender people is a big step for equal rights activist. The Boy Scouts say in a statement on their website that discriminating towards people based on their biological sex is not “sufficient as communities and state laws are interpreting gender identity differently, and these laws vary from state to state” (BSA, 2017).
References

BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA V. DALE (99-699) 530 U.S. 640 (2000)
Boy Scouts of America v. Dale. (2017, June 28). Retrieved November 20, 2017, from
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1999/99-699

BSA Addresses Gender Identity Policy Questions. (2017, February 06). Retrieved from
https://voiceofscouting.org/bsa-transgender-policy-changes

Chokshi, N. (2017, January 30). Boy Scouts, Reversing Century-Old Stance, Will Allow
Transgender Boys. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/us/boy-scouts-reversing-century-old-stance-will-allow-transgender-boys.html

Hurley v. Irish American Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc. (2017). Retrieved
November 20, 2017, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1994/94-749

Roberts v. United States Jaycees. (2017). Retrieved November 20, 2017, from
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1983/83-724