Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Board of Directors of Rotary International v. Rotary Club of Duarte

Supreme Court of the United States · 1987 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawFirst AmendmentFreedom of AssociationSex DiscriminationPublic AccommodationsFirst Amendmentintimate associationprivate association

Facts

Rotary International and its local clubs limited membership to men, although women could attend meetings, give speeches, and participate in some related activities. In 1977 the Rotary Club of Duarte, California, admitted three women as active members, and Rotary International revoked the club's charter for violating the Rotary constitution. The women and the club sued under California's Unruh Civil Rights Act to prevent enforcement of the male-only rule. The case turned on whether applying that statute to California Rotary Clubs violated the First Amendment rights of association.

Issue

Whether California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, as applied to require California Rotary Clubs to admit women, violates the First Amendment rights of private or expressive association. Also, whether appellants' vagueness and overbreadth challenges were properly before the Court.

Rule

Under the First Amendment framework of Roberts v. United States Jaycees, courts assess separately whether state action unduly interferes with intimate association or expressive association. Intimate-association protection depends on objective characteristics such as size, purpose, selectivity, and whether others are excluded from critical aspects of the relationship. If forced inclusion causes at most a slight burden on expressive association, the burden may be justified by a compelling state interest unrelated to suppressing ideas, including the State's interest in eliminating discrimination against women through a viewpoint-neutral public accommodations law.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

The Harbor Exchange Club in San Diego is a nonprofit civic group for local executives and professionals. It has 280 members, no fixed membership cap, recruits continuously to offset annual attrition, and regularly invites guests, reporters, and members of affiliated clubs to weekly lunches. California applies a public accommodations law to require the club to admit women.

The club argues that compelled admission violates its First Amendment right of intimate association. Which is the strongest analysis?

Explanation. The majority requires a careful inquiry into objective characteristics such as size, purpose, selectivity, and whether outsiders are excluded from critical aspects of the relationship. A large club with no upper limit, regular turnover, an inclusive recruitment policy, and meetings attended by guests and press is not the sort of intimate or private relationship that receives constitutional protection. The analysis does not turn on commercial activity alone. (Derived from Board of Directors of Rotary International v. Rotary Club of Duarte (1987).)