In Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000), the Supreme Court held 5-4 that the First Amendment right of expressive association allowed the Boy Scouts to revoke the adult membership of James Dale, an assistant scoutmaster, after learning he was gay. The decision reversed the New Jersey Supreme Court and blocked the state’s public accommodation law from forcing his reinstatement.1Cornell Law School. Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 – Section: Syllabus
How the Case Began
James Dale joined the Boy Scouts of America in 1978, earned the rank of Eagle Scout, and later applied for adult membership. He was appointed assistant scoutmaster for Troop 73 in Monmouth County. In July 1990, he attended a seminar on the needs of gay and lesbian teenagers and gave a newspaper interview in which he spoke openly about his sexual orientation. After the article appeared, the Monmouth Council sent Dale a letter revoking his membership, informing him that the Boy Scouts’ standards prohibited homosexuals from serving as members.2Cornell Law School. Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 – Section: Opinion of the Court
Dale sued, claiming the revocation violated the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, which forbids sexual-orientation discrimination in places of public accommodation.3Justia Law. N.J. Stat. Ann. § 10:5-4
The New Jersey Supreme Court Ruling
The New Jersey Supreme Court sided with Dale. It concluded that the Boy Scouts functioned as a place of public accommodation under state law, that admitting Dale would not significantly affect the organization’s ability to carry out its mission, and that the members did not associate for the specific purpose of promoting the view that homosexuality is immoral. It ordered his reinstatement.1Cornell Law School. Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 – Section: Syllabus
What the Supreme Court Decided
The Supreme Court reversed, 5-4. Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote for the majority. The Court held that applying the New Jersey public accommodation law to require the Boy Scouts to accept Dale as an assistant scoutmaster violated the organization’s First Amendment right of expressive association. Even where a group qualifies as a public accommodation, the state cannot compel it to include a person whose presence would significantly burden the group’s ability to advocate its viewpoints.1Cornell Law School. Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 – Section: Syllabus
The practical result: Dale was not reinstated, and the Boy Scouts kept the authority to set its own leadership standards.
The Expressive Association Reasoning
To qualify for expressive-association protection, a group does not need to exist solely to spread a message. It must engage in some form of expression that helps define its identity. The Court looked to the Scout Oath and Law, which require members to be “morally straight” and “clean.” The organization interpreted those terms as inconsistent with homosexual conduct, and the Court deferred to that interpretation of the group’s own values.1Cornell Law School. Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 – Section: Syllabus
Given that interpretation, the majority found that requiring the Scouts to retain Dale as an assistant scoutmaster would force the group to send a message contrary to the one it wished to convey. That burden on the group’s expression was enough to override the state’s anti-discrimination interest as applied here.1Cornell Law School. Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 – Section: Syllabus