Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis

1972-06-12

Headline: Reversed lower court: Court allows a private social club to refuse a Black guest but blocks state rule that would enforce racially discriminatory club bylaws through liquor licensing.

Holding: The Court reversed the lower court, holding that a private club’s refusal to serve a Black guest in its private building is not state action, but it enjoined enforcement of a state regulation requiring clubs to follow racially discriminatory bylaws.

Real World Impact:

Lets private social clubs refuse guests without automatically making that refusal a state constitutional violation.
Bars enforcement of state rules that would force clubs to follow racially discriminatory bylaws.
Limits who can challenge club membership rules unless they personally sought membership.

Topics: racial discrimination, private clubs, liquor licensing, state involvement, equal protection

Summary

Background

A Black man (Irvis) was refused service as a guest at a local Moose Lodge chapter in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. He sued the Lodge and the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board for an injunction, arguing the state license made the club’s refusal a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. A three-judge district court invalidated the Lodge’s liquor license while it practiced racial discrimination. The Lodge appealed to the Supreme Court.

Reasoning

The key question was whether the Lodge’s refusal to serve a guest was private conduct or “state action” because the State licensed the club to sell liquor. The Court’s majority held that the club’s refusal to serve a guest in its privately owned building did not by itself count as state action and so did not violate the Equal Protection Clause. But the Court found a narrower problem: a Liquor Control Board regulation requiring clubs to follow their constitutions and bylaws would, if those bylaws required racial exclusion, make the State enforce discrimination. The Court therefore reversed the district court broadly and ordered that the state regulation not be enforced to require compliance with racially discriminatory bylaws.

Real world impact

The decision means private social clubs in private buildings can exclude guests without automatically triggering a federal equal-protection violation, but states may not use licensing rules to force clubs to follow racially discriminatory rules. Irvis had standing only to challenge the guest-service practices; the Court limited relief to stopping enforcement of the specific Liquor Board regulation. The ruling could vary with different facts about how closely a state is involved.

Dissents or concurrances

Justices Douglas, Brennan, and Marshall dissented, arguing Pennsylvania’s licensing scheme and quota made the State deeply involved and therefore constitutionally responsible for the discrimination.