Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees - Significance, Rebellion In The Ranks, Never Say Die, The Supreme Court Decides, Exclusive Clubs And Discrimination

minnesota human appellants act

Appellants

Kathryn R. Roberts, Acting Commissioner, Minnesota Department of Human Rights, et al.

Appellee

U.S. Jaycees

Appellants' Claim

That Minnesota's Human Rights Act was constitutional and required the Jaycees to admit women as regular members.

Chief Lawyer for Appellants

Richard L. Varco, Jr.

Chief Lawyer for Appellee

Carl D. Hall, Jr.

Justices for the Court

William J. Brennan, Jr. (writing for the Court), Thurgood Marshall, Sandra Day O'Connor, Lewis F. Powell, Jr., William H. Rehnquist, John Paul Stevens, Byron R. White

Justices Dissenting

Harry A. Blackmun (Warren E. Burger did not participate)

Place

Washington, D.C.

Date of Decision

3 July 1984

Decision

Minnesota's Human Rights Act was constitutional. Requiring the Jaycees to admit women as regular members in accordance with the act's provisions did not violate that organization's right to freedom of association.

Related Cases

Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964).
Beynon v. St. George-Dixie Lodge No. 1743, Benev. and Protective Order of Elks, 854 P.2d 513 (1993).
South Boston Allied War Veterans Council v. City of Boston, 875 F.Supp 891 (1995).
Mauro v. Arpaio, 147 F.3d 1137 (1998).

Sources

Leonard W. Levy, ed. Encyclopedia of the American Constitution. New York: Macmillan, 1986.

Additional Topics

Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees - Rebellion In The Ranks

Despite the rule against women, two chapters--one in Minneapolis (1974) and the other in St. Paul (1975)--admitted women to full membership. Women became a significant presence in both local chapters, even serving on their boards of directors. As a consequence, the national organization declared all members of those chapters ineligible to run for the organization's state or national offices, to re…

Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees - Never Say Die

The department examiner did rule against the national board, classifying the Jaycees organization as a "place of public accommodation" within the meaning of Minnesota's Human Rights Act. Therefore, excluding women was an unfair discriminatory practice. The Jaycees renewed its suit before the district court, which then referred the question to the Minnesota Supreme Court. Having already ruled in 19…

Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees - The Supreme Court Decides

Kathryn R. Roberts, the acting commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Rights, appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. On 18 April 1984, Richard L. Varco, Jr., argued that the act was not unconstitutionally broad or vague and that Minnesota could require the Jaycees to admit women. Carl D. Hall, Jr. argued for the Jaycees that the Fourteenth Amendment requires that laws be clearly written an…

Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees - Exclusive Clubs And Discrimination

Inasmuch as a club truly is private,the Constitution offers little to impede its members from restricting membership. Not only is there an idea of freedom of association derived from the First Amendment, but the Constitution itself is designed to place restraints on government, not on individuals. Yet where discrimination on the basis of gender, ethnicity, or other such factors can be clearly demo…

Citing this material

Please include a link to this page if you have found this material useful for research or writing a related article. Content on this website is from high-quality, licensed material originally published in print form. You can always be sure you're reading unbiased, factual, and accurate information.

Highlight the text below, right-click, and select “copy”. Paste the link into your website, email, or any other HTML document.