Boy Scouts

[Michael MASINTER]

How could any person or organization have standing to challenge on equal
protection grounds state assistance to the boy scouts or any other
discriminatory organizations because they discriminate.  Allen v. Wright,
Simon v. EKWRO, Warth v. Seldin, Schlesinger v. Reservists Committee to
Stop the War, and a host of other standing cases would seem to pose
obstacles ranging from stigmatic injury insufficient to constitute injury
in fact, state assistance must cause the injury, relief must remediate the
injury by dissuading the third party from discriminating rather than
foregoing state assistance, no taxpayer standing to restrain
unconstitutional spending save for the establishment clause, no citizen
standing to compel the state to comply with the law, for starters.

Michael R. Masinter                     3305 College Avenue
Nova Southeastern University            Fort Lauderdale, Fl. 33314
Shepard Broad Law Center                (954) 262-6151
masinter at law.acast.nova.edu

On Tue, 31 Mar 1998, ArtSpitzer wrote:

> In a message dated 3/31/98 3:03:42 AM, Eugene Volokh wrote:
>
> >But isn't this argument -- that the state "cannot use its
> >resources to support an organization that practices discrimination of
> >a sort that the state could not practice" -- rejected by the state
> >action cases reject?  Certainly it is as to the 1st Am and the Due
> >Process Clause:  The state may certainly use its resources to support
> >an organization that restricts people's speech and acts against them
> >without due process, so long as the speech restrictions and the due-
> >process-less actions are the organization's own, and not fairly
> >attributable to the state.  See Rendell-Baker v. Kohn; Blum v.
> >Yaretsky.
>
> True. I need to refine what I said about "sponsor."  I gather than when an
> entity "sponsors" a Boy Scout troop, it does more than "support" it
> financially, as the state supported the school involved in Rendell-Baker and
> the hospital (as I recall) involved in Blum.  The "sponsor" of a troop, I
> gather, assumes responsibility for its activities on a broader basis. ...
> Well, then, in such a case does the troop itself become a state actor?
> Perhaps so.  I'll try to find out whether the Chicago lawsuit so alleged.
> Art Spitzer
>