Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston facts for kids
Quick facts for kids Hurley v. Irish American GLIB Association |
|
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued April 25, 1995 Decided June 19, 1995 |
|
| Full case name | John J. Hurley and South Boston Allied War Veterans Council v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, Etc. |
| Citations | 515 U.S. 557 (more)
115 S. Ct. 2338; 132 L. Ed. 2d 487; 1995 U.S. LEXIS 4050
|
| Holding | |
| Private citizens organizing a public demonstration may not be compelled by the state to include groups who impart a message the organizers do not want to be included in their demonstration | |
| Court membership | |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Souter, joined by unanimous |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. I | |
Hurley v. Irish American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston was an important decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1995. This case was about free speech and the right of groups to decide what message their events send to the public.
The Court decided that private groups, even when holding public events like parades, could choose to exclude other groups. They could do this if the excluded group's message was different from what the organizers wanted to show. The Court said that the government cannot force private citizens organizing a public event to include messages they don't agree with. This is true even if the government's goal is to prevent unfair treatment.
What Happened Before the Case
For many years, the city of Boston, Massachusetts, held public celebrations for St. Patrick's Day and Evacuation Day. These events celebrate the departure of British troops from the city in 1776.
After 1947, the mayor gave the job of organizing the parade to the South Boston Allied War Veterans Council. This group was made up of private citizens from different veterans' groups in Boston. For a long time, they were the only group that applied for a parade permit.
In 1992, a group called the Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston (GLIB) asked to march in the parade. GLIB said they were not mainly about a "gay, lesbian, and bisexual message." They explained that their members were Irish descendants who also happened to be gay, lesbian, and bisexual. They were proud of their Irish heritage.
On March 1, the Veterans Council said no to GLIB's request. The Governor of Massachusetts, William Weld, supported GLIB. Boston Mayor Ray Flynn tried to help both sides reach an agreement, but it didn't work. GLIB even offered to limit their marchers to 25 people and control their behavior. The Council still voted to reject GLIB's offer.
GLIB then sued the Council, the city, and Mayor Flynn. They asked the court to make the Council allow them to march. They pointed to a Massachusetts law that prevented unfair treatment in public places. On March 11, a judge ordered the Council to let GLIB march. The Council did not fight this order.
GLIB marched in the parade that year. News reports described the experience as difficult, with some people showing strong disagreement.
The next year, the Council again refused GLIB's request to march. They also stopped taking money from the city for the parade. GLIB sued again. The judge once more sided with GLIB. He said the parade was like a "municipal celebration" or "public festival." He noted that the parade had followed the same route for decades. It often allowed the public to join and rarely required formal applications.
GLIB argued that the Council did not have a clear process for screening other groups. While the Council had stopped groups like the Ku Klux Klan from marching, the court felt this was not relevant. The court decided that the Council's First Amendment rights were not affected. This was because the parade seemed more like an "open recreational event" than a private one.
The Massachusetts Appeals Court and the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts agreed with the lower court's decision. They said the law was fair and did not unfairly limit the Council's free speech rights. They also agreed that the parade, as it had been run, was subject to the "public accommodations" law. This law meant it could not refuse groups without a clear reason.
The Council then canceled the 1994 parade. For the 1995 parade, the Council announced a new political theme. They wanted to protest recent court decisions. A U.S. District Court judge then ruled that the Council could limit who marched. This was because the parade was now an exercise of their free speech. The judge ordered the city of Boston to give the Council a parade permit. Boston Mayor Tom Menino ordered city workers not to participate in their official roles. This meant fire engines and mounted police did not march.
The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case on January 6, 1995. They heard arguments on April 25.
Supreme Court's Decision
Justice Souter delivered the unanimous decision of the Court on June 19, 1995. All nine justices agreed.
Justice Souter explained that even if the Council did not have a very specific message, the parade itself was a form of expression. The Council had the right to control this message. He noted that the Council had been quite open about who could join the parade in the past. But he said this did not mean they gave up their right to present their message as they wished.
He wrote that a key part of free speech is that "one who chooses to speak may also decide what not to say." GLIB's lawyer had argued that GLIB's banner did not carry any "extra message." He said it would not interfere with the parade organizers' speech rights. However, Justice Souter saw the banner as a way for GLIB to show that "some Irish are gay, lesbian, or bisexual." He felt it meant they "have as much claim to unqualified social acceptance as heterosexuals."
The Court was concerned that anyone watching the parade might think that all groups involved shared the same overall message. Justice Souter wrote that the law could not stop the Council from excluding messages they disagreed with. They could not be forced to support a message against their will.
This decision also affected a similar dispute in New York City. There, a court had allowed the organizers of a St. Patrick's Day parade to exclude homosexual groups.
Catholic officials welcomed the Supreme Court's ruling. A legal expert and supporter of gay rights, Arthur S. Leonard, said that talking and educating were better ways to promote gay inclusion than going to court. But he also liked the ruling because he thought it was "carefully crafted." He felt it addressed the parade issues while still allowing states to ban unfair treatment.
What Happened After the Case
The South Boston Allied Veterans Council did not allow gay groups to march in the parade until 2015. In 2015, they accepted applications from Boston Pride and OUTVETS, a gay veterans' organization. After this decision, Boston Mayor Marty Walsh announced he would march in the parade. This was the first time a mayor had participated in 20 years.
In 2017, LGBT groups were temporarily banned again. However, they were allowed back a few days later after negative news coverage.
