Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis

Supreme Court of the United States · 1972 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawEqual ProtectionState ActionStandingFourteenth AmendmentEqual Protection Clausestate actionprivate club

Facts

Irvis, a Negro, was brought to Moose Lodge's dining room and bar as a guest of a white member and was refused food and beverage service solely because of his race. Moose Lodge is a private social club that owns its own building, is not publicly funded, and admits only members and invited guests. The Lodge was licensed by the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board to sell liquor, and Pennsylvania regulations extensively governed licensed clubs. The Supreme Lodge's governing documents limited membership to white male Caucasians, and after the lower court proceedings the bylaws were altered to impose similar racial restrictions on guests.

Issue

Whether Moose Lodge's discriminatory refusal to serve a guest became state action under the Fourteenth Amendment because Pennsylvania licensed and regulated the Lodge's liquor service. Also, whether Irvis had standing to challenge the Lodge's discriminatory membership policies as well as its guest-service practices.

Rule

A private entity's discrimination violates the Equal Protection Clause only when the State has significantly involved itself with the invidious discrimination; mere receipt of a state license or detailed regulation is not enough. A plaintiff has standing to seek relief only for the discriminatory practice that caused his own injury, absent a recognized exception. But when a state regulation requires compliance with racially discriminatory provisions in a club's constitution or bylaws, the State places its sanctions behind private discrimination, which is state action forbidden by the Fourteenth Amendment.

🔒

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.

In Columbus, Ohio, the Cedar Glen Society is a private social club that owns its clubhouse, admits only members and invited guests, and receives no public funding. Ohio has issued the club a liquor license and subjects it to detailed recordkeeping, inspection, and hours-of-sale regulations. When Malik Turner attends as a guest of a member, the club refuses to serve him because he is Black.

If Malik sues under the Equal Protection Clause, what is the strongest argument against finding state action?

Explanation. The majority held that a private club's refusal to serve a guest because of race is not state action merely because the State issued a liquor license and imposed extensive liquor regulations. The Equal Protection Clause reaches private discrimination only when the State has significantly involved itself with the invidious discrimination. Detailed regulation aimed at liquor control, without more, does not make the State a partner or joint venturer in the club's guest-service practices.