Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc.

1995-06-19
Share:

Headline: Court blocks state rule forcing private parade organizers to include groups with messages they oppose, protecting organizers’ free-speech control over parade content and who may march.

Holding:

Real World Impact:
  • Allows private parade organizers to refuse groups with unwanted messages.
  • Limits state public-accommodation laws that force speakers to change expression.
  • Protects organizers’ control over who and what appears in parades.
Topics: parade speech, free speech, public accommodations law, event organizers' rights

Summary

Background

A private veterans group in South Boston organized an annual St. Patrick’s/Evacuation Day parade that has run for decades. An organization of gay, lesbian, and bisexual descendants (formed to march under its own banner) was denied entry by the parade sponsors. The denied group sued under Massachusetts’ public accommodations law, and state courts ordered the sponsors to admit the group into the parade.

Reasoning

The Court asked whether requiring private parade organizers to include a contingent that carries a message the organizers oppose forces the organizers to speak. The Justices concluded the parade and each unit in it are expressive. Forcing the sponsors to include a message they reject would compel them to alter the content of their expression and thus violate their free-speech rights. The Court rejected arguments that this order was like other access rules (for example, for cable systems or shopping centers) and found no comparable government interest that would justify overruling the organizers’ control over parade speech.

Real world impact

The ruling prevents states from using public-accommodations laws to make private parade sponsors carry messages they disagree with. Parade and event organizers retain the right to choose which groups and messages appear in their presentations. The decision reverses the state high court and sends the case back for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Dissents or concurrances

The Massachusetts high court had a dissent arguing the parade need not have a single narrow message and that exclusion could be addressed without compelling speech; that view did not carry the day here.

Ask about this case

Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).

What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?

How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?

What are the practical implications of this ruling?

Related Cases