Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis case brief summary
407 U.S. 163 (1972)
CASE FACTS
The guest brought an action under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 for injunctive relief in the district court after the club denied him service. He claimed that because the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board (Board) issued the club a license that authorized the sale of alcoholic beverages on its premises, the refusal of service to him was "state action" for the purposes of U.S. Constitutional Amendment XIV. A three-judge district court upheld the guest's contention as it related to membership practices.
DISCUSSION
The Court reversed the district court's decision and remanded the matter with instructions to enter a decree in conformity with the Court's opinion. Appellee was entitled to a decree enjoining the enforcement of the Board's regulation insofar as that regulation required the compliance by the club with provisions of its own constitution and bylaws containing racially discriminatory provisions.
Suggested Study Aids and Books
407 U.S. 163 (1972)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Appellant private club sought review of
a decision of a three-judge panel of the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, which found that the club's
refusal to serve appellee, a guest of a club member, solely based on
the guest's race gave rise to an Equal Protection Clause violation of
U.S. Constitutional Amendment XIV.CASE FACTS
The guest brought an action under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 for injunctive relief in the district court after the club denied him service. He claimed that because the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board (Board) issued the club a license that authorized the sale of alcoholic beverages on its premises, the refusal of service to him was "state action" for the purposes of U.S. Constitutional Amendment XIV. A three-judge district court upheld the guest's contention as it related to membership practices.
DISCUSSION
- The United States Supreme Court reversed, holding that because the guest had no standing to litigate a constitutional claim arising out of the club's membership practices, the lower court erred in reaching that issue.
- On the other hand, the Court found no error with respect to the lower court's reaching the guest's constitutional claim that the club's guest-service practices violated U.S. Constitutional Amendment XIV, because the club's required compliance with the Board's regulation that required compliance with the club's own racially discriminatory provisions established "state action."
The Court reversed the district court's decision and remanded the matter with instructions to enter a decree in conformity with the Court's opinion. Appellee was entitled to a decree enjoining the enforcement of the Board's regulation insofar as that regulation required the compliance by the club with provisions of its own constitution and bylaws containing racially discriminatory provisions.
Suggested Study Aids and Books
No comments:
Post a Comment