Facts
- The United States Jaycees was a national nonprofit civic organization with local chapters, including chapters in Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minnesota.
- National bylaws limited “regular” membership to men ages 18–35; women and older men could join only as “associate” members without voting rights or eligibility for office.
- The Minneapolis and St. Paul chapters began admitting women as regular members; the national organization threatened charter revocation.
- Members filed complaints under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA), which prohibited sex discrimination in places of public accommodation.
- A state hearing examiner found the Jaycees covered by the MHRA and ordered compliance; the Minnesota Supreme Court agreed the Jaycees qualified as a place of public accommodation.
- The Jaycees sued state officials in federal court to enjoin enforcement, asserting compelled inclusion violated First Amendment speech and associational rights.
- The district court upheld enforcement; the Eighth Circuit reversed on freedom-of-association grounds.
Issues
- Whether requiring the Jaycees to admit women as full members infringed constitutionally protected “intimate association.”
- Whether enforcement of the MHRA unconstitutionally burdened the Jaycees’ freedom of expressive association.
- Whether Minnesota’s interest in eliminating sex discrimination justified any resulting burden on associational rights.
Decision
- The Supreme Court reversed the Eighth Circuit and upheld application of the MHRA to require the Jaycees to admit women as regular members.
- The Court held the Jaycees’ local chapters were not “intimate” associations warranting heightened constitutional protection.
- The Court assumed the Jaycees engaged in protected expressive activity but found the MHRA imposed no serious impairment of the organization’s expression.
- Minnesota’s compelling interest in eradicating sex discrimination in public accommodations justified the statute’s incidental effect on association.
- Concurring opinions agreed the Jaycees failed to show that admitting women would significantly affect its ability to express its views.
Legal Principles
- The Constitution protects (1) certain “intimate” relationships and (2) association for the purpose of engaging in First Amendment-protected expression.
- An association is unlikely to qualify as “intimate” when it is large, relatively unselective, and open in recruiting and membership practices.
- Government may justify burdens on expressive association through regulations serving compelling interests unrelated to suppressing ideas, using means that do not restrict association substantially more than necessary.
- Generally applicable public-accommodations anti-discrimination laws, applied without regard to viewpoint, may be enforced against membership organizations when compelled inclusion does not materially interfere with the group’s expression.
Conclusion
Minnesota could apply its public-accommodations statute to require the Jaycees to admit women as full members because the organization was not an intimate association, the law was not aimed at suppressing speech, the burden on expressive association was limited, and the State’s interest in eliminating sex discrimination in public accommodations was compelling.