B. P. O. E. Lodge No. 2043 of Brunswick v. Keith H. Ingraham

Background

Fifteen Maine lodges of the Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks, private social clubs whose bylaws require members to be white citizens, sued after the State Liquor Commission refused to renew their liquor licenses. The Commission relied on a 1969 Maine law that forbids withholding membership, facilities, or services because of race, religion, or national origin but includes an exception for organizations oriented to a particular religion or ethnic character. The Commission also cited a licensing rule allowing consideration of an applicant’s character, location, and manner of operation. A lower court had enjoined the Commission, but the Maine Supreme Judicial Court reversed and upheld the denials.

Reasoning

The central question was whether Maine’s statute and its exception unlawfully treat groups differently by allowing some organizations to exclude people while denying that same privilege to the white-only Elks. The state court concluded the exception for religion or ethnic groups was a rational classification and therefore consistent with the Federal Constitution as applied. The United States Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for want of a substantial federal question, which means the high court declined to review the state court’s decision and left that ruling in place.

Real world impact

Because the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, Maine’s denial of liquor licenses to the white-only lodges remains effective. Private clubs that maintain openly discriminatory membership rules risk losing state licenses for selling alcohol or providing services. The dismissal is not a Supreme Court decision on the constitutional merits, so the broader constitutional question about permitting some groups to exclude people remains unresolved at the national level.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Douglas, joined by Justices Stewart and Blackmun, dissented, saying the statute’s religious and ethnic exception raises a substantial equal‑protection question and that the Court should have taken the case for full review.