What would it take for an expressive association claim to win und er the dissenters' views?

[Volokh, Eugene]

        I'm curious:  What, concretely, would it take for an expressive
association claim to win under the dissenters' views (and, say, under
Marty's and David's -- I'd also include Larry, but I'm not sure whether he
fully endorses this view)?  Let me give three hypotheticals.

        (1)  The NAACP decides to choose only blacks as its local chapter
leaders.  A white would-be local chapter leader sues, claiming that
requiring the NAACP to have him as the leader would not substantially burden
the NAACP's speech, since the NAACP most certainly doesn't clearly and
explicitly teach hostility to whites or white inferiority.

        Assume the local chapter leaders are required to speak on the
NAACP's behalf in various contexts.  Assume also that the relevant state
antidiscrimination law would require the NAACP to be color-blind in its
selections; and that the Stevens/Marty/David view prevails.  What exactly
would the NAACP have to say or do to have an expressive association defense
to the claim?

        (2)  The ACLU decides to choose its executive board members based in
part on their race and sex.  A would-be member who was excluded in part
because of his race and sex sues (say, white and male), claiming that
requiring the ACLU to have him on the board would not substantially burden
the ACLU's speech, since the ACLU most certainly doesn't clearly and
explicitly teach the view that white males are evil.

        Assume the relevant state antidiscrimination law would require the
ACLU to be color-blind and sex-blind in its selections, and has no exception
for "affirmative action" or "race/sex as a factor" classifications; and
assume that the Stevens/Marty/David view prevails.  What exactly would the
ACLU have to say or do to have an expressive association defense to the
claim?

        (3)  The Boy Scouts decide to exclude a would-be scoutmaster because
he's gay and because he's an atheist.  The excluded person sues, claiming
that requiring the Boy Scouts to have him as a scoutmaster would not
substantially burden their speech, since the Boy Scouts doesn't clearly and
explicitly teach that atheism or homosexuality is evil.

        Assume the relevant state antidiscrimination law would require the
Scouts not to discriminate based on religion or sexual orientation; and
assume that the Stevens/Marty/David view prevails.  What exactly would the
Scouts have to say or do to have an expressive association defense to the
claim?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/conlawprof/attachments/20000629/42d5326d/attachment.htm