1 / 9

Freedom of Association

Freedom of Association. Roberts v. US Jaycees – Facts

creola
Download Presentation

Freedom of Association

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Freedom of Association • Roberts v. US Jaycees – Facts • Minn. Branch of Jaycees allowed women to be full members – violates Jaycees national policy which threatened to pull charter. Minn. chapter filed discrimination charges claiming that exclusion of women from full membership violated Minn. Human Rts. Act – prohibits discrimination in public accommodations. • Public accommodation in Minn. Act = business, accommodation, refreshment, entertainment, recreation or transportation facility whose goods, services, facilities, privileges or advantages are made available to the public. • US Jaycees brought federal lawsuit arguing that forced inclusion of women violated organization’s right to associate under 1st amendment.

  2. Two kinds of Freedom of Association in Roberts • Intimate Association - The right to enter into and maintain certain intimate human relationships • Expressive Association – The right to engage in group effort to speak, worship and petition the government • Protection of both relate to expression because the ability to associate with others has “played a critical role in the culture and traditions of the Nation by cultivating and transmitting shared ideals and beliefs . . . [and] thereby foster[ing] diversity and act[ing] as critical buffers between the individual and the power of the State.”

  3. Roberts v. US Jaycees – Intimate Association • Intimate association must be secured from undue intrusion (p. 226) • 2 poles to relationships – families (protected) & business enterprises (not protected) • If group falls in-between – look to factors (size, purpose, policies, selectivity, congeniality, other characteristics) • Why don’t Jaycees fit w/in “intimate association”? • What kinds of groups would fall under this protection? • Even if group is an “intimate association” it isn’t automatically protected – law is okay as long as it isn’t an “undue” intrusion

  4. Government Actions Implicating the Right to Expressive Association • SCT recognizes correlative right to associate with others as necessary to fully effectuate free speech rights • There are different ways in which gov’t action can infringe on this right to expressive association: • Punishment of membership in a disfavored group – punishment for the bad acts of others (communist cases) • Forced disclosure requirements re membership (will see some re anonymity cases) • Forced association with people arguably inconsistent with group’s message – i.e., messing with internal affairs of group or compelled association with unwelcome speech (Roberts, Hurley, Dale)

  5. Roberts v. Jaycees – Expressive Association • Relevant Question (pp. 227-28): Does the group associate to facilitate shared goals of expression, worship or petition of the gov’t? • Even then, a law can burden this right if it is: • adopted to serve a compelling interest, • unrelated to the suppression of ideas, and • cannot be achieved through means significantly less restrictive of associational freedoms.

  6. Roberts expressive ass’n test in application: • Is the law : • Adopted to serve a compelling interest? • Unrelated to the suppression of ideas? • What is the Jaycee’s goal? Does inclusion of women interfere w/ that? • Would the outcome change if the Jaycees were a group dedicated to eradicating women from the workplace? • Can the interest be achieved through means significantly less restrictive of associational freedoms? • Are there problems with approaching the issue as the majority does? • Should we worry about looking for a particularized message w/ which inclusion of another interferes? • Is O’Connor’s approach better? • Std – are the group’s activities not predominately the type protected by the 1st amendment (i.e., predominately commercial)?

  7. Hurley v. GLIB • Holding: Inclusion of GLIB in privately-sponsored St. Pat’s day parade violates parade sponsor’s right to expressive association. • Is organizing a parade inherently expressive? • What particularized message did the parade organizers convey in Hurley? • Did the Court require a particularized message? • Why does inclusion of GLIB violate expression of association? How is this issue different than in Roberts? • Why isn’t a parade (made up of different constituencies) like a cable company in Turner – i.e., why isn’t it just a conduit for speakers?

  8. Boy Scouts v. Dale • Boy Scouts argued that forced inclusion of James Dale interfered with the right of expressive association. His open homosexuality was inconsistent with values Scouts sought to instill. • Court asked two main questions: • Do the Boy Scouts engage in “expressive association?” • This is at least a minimal requirement in order to gain 1st amendment protection. (p. 237) • Does the inclusion of Dale “significantly burden” or interfere w/ Boy Scouts right to expressive association? • Shorthand SCT used for the last two prongs of the Roberts test after it found the anti-discrimination interest was compelling. • Unclear whether this is a new version of the test or just SCT’s spin on the test in this case.

  9. Dale Applied • Do the Boy Scouts engage in “expressive association?” • Who has the better argument – the majority or the dissent? • How deferential was (should) a court be to the group’s claimed message? • What evidence was there to support group’s claim? • How particularized must the message be? • Does the inclusion of Dale affect/burden the group’s • expressive association? • Who has the better argument – the majority or the dissent? • To what extent is Hurley relevant? • To what extent do anti-discrimination laws survive Dale? • Does Roberts survive Dale?

More Related