Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
70. Are the residents likely to prevail in their claim?
In a recent state administrative proceeding, the organization opposed plans to begin mining operations in the mountains surrounding a small town. Its opposition prevented the mine from being opened on schedule. In an effort to force the organization to withdraw its opposition, certain residents of the town attended a meeting of the organization and tried to become members, but the officers refused to admit them. The residents sued the organization, claiming that the refusal to admit them was discriminatory and violated a local ordinance that prohibits any organization from discriminating on the basis of an individual's political views. The organization responded that the ordinance is unconstitutional as applied to its membership decisions.
An environmental organization's stated mission is to support environmental causes. The organization's membership is generally open to the public, but its bylaws permit its officers to refuse to admit anyone to membership who does not adhere to the organization's mission statement.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
B is correct. The residents are not likely to prevail in their claim because it would violate the environmental organization's First Amendment right to freedom of association if the state were to force the organization to accept the residents as members. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the forced inclusion of an unwanted person in a group violates the group's freedom of association if including that person would significantly affect the group's ability to express its viewpoints. The freedom of expressive association entitles the environmental organization to refuse membership to the residents because admitting them would inhibit the organization's expression regarding the mining operations. See Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000).
A is incorrect. Although it is true that the membership policies of a private organization are not state action, and state action is generally required to find some action unconstitutional, this does not mean the action in question must be directly conducted by a government actor. Here, the local ordinance on which the residents based their suit is state action, and it is thus subject to the requirements of the First Amendment.
C is incorrect. The action of the officers in refusing to admit the residents as members is not subject to the Equal Protection Clause, because to trigger provisions under this Clause, it must be limited to state action. The environmental organization is a private entity, and therefore the conduct of the organization's officers does not constitute state action.
D is incorrect. Although the right to freedom of association may typically only be infringed upon to serve a compelling state interest unrelated to the expression of ideas, in some cases, a more lenient standard will apply. The Court has held that even statutes that support compelling interests do not justify the severe burden on an organization's freedom of association that would result from forcing an organization to accept members who would significantly affect the organization's ability to express its viewpoints. See Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000).