InsideGov
Supreme Court · Decisions

Boy Scouts of America and Monmouth Council, et al. v. James Dale

In a 5–4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that opposition to homosexuality is part of BSA's "expressive message" and that allowing homosexuals as adult leaders would interfere with that message.

530 U.S. 640 · No. 99-699 · 1999 term · Rehnquist Court

Decided Jun 28, 2000 · argued Apr 26, 2000

Civil rights · Sex discrimination

Landmark · Freedom of associationStruck down a state law

Majority opinion: William Rehnquist

The voteMajorityDissent

5–45 in the majority, 4 in dissent

4 dissents (5–4)

Reversed and remanded. Boy Scouts of America and Monmouth Council, et al. won.

What this ruling means

Reversed and remanded: the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the New Jersey Supreme Court and sent the case back to that court for further proceedings that follow the Supreme Court’s ruling.

Boy Scouts of America and Monmouth Council, et al. was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Won” means the Court gave that side the result it asked for.

From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.

Report a correction

Summary

The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.

Boy Scouts of America et al. v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000), is a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, decided on June 28, 2000, which held that the constitutional right to freedom of association allowed the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) to exclude a homosexual person from membership in spite of a state law requiring equal treatment of homosexuals in public accommodations. More generally, the court ruled that a private organization such as the BSA may exclude a person from membership when "the presence of that person affects in a significant way the group's ability to advocate public or private viewpoints". In a 5–4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that opposition to homosexuality is part of BSA's "expressive message" and that allowing homosexuals as adult leaders would interfere with that message.

The ruling reversed a decision of the New Jersey Supreme Court that had determined that New Jersey's public accommodations law required the BSA to readmit assistant Scoutmaster James Dale, who had come out and whom the BSA had expelled from the organization for that reason. Subsequently, the BSA lifted its bans on gay scouts and gay leaders in 2013 and 2015, respectively.

Read the full article on Wikipedia

Data notes

The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.

Report a correction

How the justices voted

Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 1999 term. Filled: the 5 in the majority. Hollow: the 4 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.

More liberalMore conservativeMedianStevensGinsburgSouterBreyerO'ConnorKennedyRehnquistScaliaThomas

Majority(5)

Dissent(4)

Data notes

Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.

Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.

Report a correction

The parties

Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.

Petitioner
Boy Scouts of America and Monmouth Council, et al.Professional organization, business, or person
Respondent
James DaleLesbian, gay, bisexual, transexual person or organization
Reached the Court by
Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
Data notes

The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.

Report a correction

The law at issue

The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.

Provision
First Amendment (speech, press, and assembly)
Kind of law
Constitutional Amendment
Decided by
Judicial review (state level)
Struck down
A state law, as unconstitutional
Data notes

The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.

Report a correction

Timeline

What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.

  1. Jun 28, 2000DecidedDecided · Decided 5–4: reversed and remanded. Boy Scouts of America and Monmouth Council, et al. won.
  2. Apr 26, 2000ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
  3. Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari).
  4. Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the New Jersey Supreme Court: affirmed.
  5. Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the New Jersey trial court.
Data notes

From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.

Report a correction

Other decisions on the same issue

44 other argued cases since 1946 on sex discrimination, newest first.

  1. West Virginia v. B.P.J.146 S. Ct. 2356Jun 30, 2026 · 146 S. Ct. 2356Civil rights6–36–3 band

  2. United States v. Skrmetti145 S. Ct. 1816Jun 18, 2025 · 145 S. Ct. 1816Civil rights6–36–3 band

  3. 303 Creative LLC v. ElenisLandmark · Freedom of speech and of the press600 U.S. 570Jun 30, 2023 · 600 U.S. 570Civil rights6–36–3 band

  4. Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania141 S. Ct. 1868Jun 17, 2021 · 141 S. Ct. 1868Civil rights9–0Unanimous band

  5. Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission138 S. Ct. 1719Jun 4, 2018 · 138 S. Ct. 1719Civil rights7–27–2 band

  6. Lisa Fitzgerald, et vir v. Barnstable School Committee et al.555 U.S. 246Jan 21, 2009 · 555 U.S. 246Civil rights9–0Unanimous band

  7. Roderick Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education544 U.S. 167Mar 29, 2005 · 544 U.S. 167Civil rights5–45–4 band
  8. Tuan Anh Nguyen and Joseph Boulais v. Immigration and Naturalization Service533 U.S. 53Jun 11, 2001 · 533 U.S. 53Civil rights5–45–4 band

  9. Aurelia Davis, As Next Friend of Lashonda D. v. Monroe County Board of Education et al.526 U.S. 629May 24, 1999 · 526 U.S. 629Civil rights5–45–4 band

  10. National Collegiate Athletic Association v. R. M. Smith525 U.S. 459Feb 23, 1999 · 525 U.S. 459Civil rights9–0Unanimous band

  11. Alida Star Gebser and Alida Jean McCullough v. Lago Vista Independent School District524 U.S. 274Jun 22, 1998 · 524 U.S. 274Civil rights5–45–4 band

  12. United States v. Virginia et al.Landmark · Discrimination based on sex518 U.S. 515Jun 26, 1996 · 518 U.S. 515Civil rights7–18–1 band

  13. J. E. B. v. Alabama ex rel. T. B.Landmark · Discrimination based on sex511 U.S. 127Apr 19, 1994 · 511 U.S. 127Civil rights6–36–3 band

  14. Christine Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools and William Prescott.503 U.S. 60Feb 26, 1992 · 503 U.S. 60Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
  15. New York State Club Association, Inc. v. City of New York et al.487 U.S. 1Jun 20, 1988 · 487 U.S. 1Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
  16. Board of Directors of Rotary International et al. v. Rotary Club of Duarte et al.481 U.S. 537May 4, 1987 · 481 U.S. 537Civil rights7–0Unanimous band
  17. Heckler, Secretary of Health and Human Services v. Mathews et al.465 U.S. 728Mar 5, 1984 · 465 U.S. 728Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
  18. Grove City College et al. v. Bell, Secretary of Education, et al.465 U.S. 555Feb 28, 1984 · 465 U.S. 555Civil rights7–27–2 band

  19. Lehr v. Robertson et al.463 U.S. 248Jun 27, 1983 · 463 U.S. 248Civil rights6–36–3 band

  20. Mississippi University for Women et al. v. HoganLandmark · Discrimination based on sex458 U.S. 718Jul 1, 1982 · 458 U.S. 718Civil rights5–45–4 band

  21. Rostker, Director of Selective Service v. Goldberg et al.453 U.S. 57Jun 25, 1981 · 453 U.S. 57Civil rights6–36–3 band

  22. Michael M. v. Superior Court of Sonoma County (California, Real Party in Interest)450 U.S. 464Mar 23, 1981 · 450 U.S. 464Civil rights5–45–4 band

  23. Kirchberg v. Feenstra et al.450 U.S. 455Mar 23, 1981 · 450 U.S. 455Civil rights9–0Unanimous band

  24. Wengler v. Druggists Mutual Insurance Co. et al.446 U.S. 142Apr 22, 1980 · 446 U.S. 142Civil rights8–18–1 band
  25. Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts et al. v. Feeney442 U.S. 256Jun 5, 1979 · 442 U.S. 256Civil rights7–27–2 band
  26. Caban v. Mohammed et ux.441 U.S. 380Apr 24, 1979 · 441 U.S. 380Civil rights5–45–4 band

  27. Parham v. Hughes441 U.S. 347Apr 24, 1979 · 441 U.S. 347Civil rights5–45–4 band

  28. Orr v. Orr440 U.S. 268Mar 5, 1979 · 440 U.S. 268Civil rights6–36–3 band

  29. Duren v. Missouri439 U.S. 357Jan 9, 1979 · 439 U.S. 357Civil rights8–18–1 band
  30. Quilloin v. Walcott et vir434 U.S. 246Jan 10, 1978 · 434 U.S. 246Civil rights9–0Unanimous band

  31. Vorchheimer v. School District of Philadelphia et al.430 U.S. 703Apr 19, 1977 · 430 U.S. 703Civil rights4–45–4 band
  32. Califano, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare v. Goldfarb430 U.S. 199Mar 2, 1977 · 430 U.S. 199Civil rights5–45–4 band

  33. Craig et al. v. Boren, Governor of Oklahoma, et al.Landmark · Discrimination based on sex429 U.S. 190Dec 20, 1976 · 429 U.S. 190Civil rights7–27–2 band

  34. Mathews, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare v. de Castro429 U.S. 181Dec 13, 1976 · 429 U.S. 181Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
  35. Stanton v. Stanton421 U.S. 7Apr 15, 1975 · 421 U.S. 7Civil rights8–18–1 band

  36. Weinberger, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare v. Wiesenfeld420 U.S. 636Mar 19, 1975 · 420 U.S. 636Civil rights8–0Unanimous band

  37. Taylor v. LouisianaLandmark · Discrimination based on sex419 U.S. 522Jan 21, 1975 · 419 U.S. 522Civil rights8–18–1 band

  38. Schlesinger, Secretary of Defense, et al. v. Ballard419 U.S. 498Jan 15, 1975 · 419 U.S. 498Civil rights5–45–4 band

  39. Kahn v. Shevin, Attorney General of Florida, et al.416 U.S. 351Apr 24, 1974 · 416 U.S. 351Civil rights6–36–3 band

  40. Frontiero et vir v. Richardson, Secretary of Defense, et al.Landmark · Discrimination based on sex411 U.S. 677May 14, 1973 · 411 U.S. 677Civil rights8–18–1 band

  41. Stanley v. IllinoisLandmark · Discrimination based on sex405 U.S. 645Apr 3, 1972 · 405 U.S. 645Civil rights5–27–2 band

  42. Reed v. Reed, AdministratorLandmark · Discrimination based on sex404 U.S. 71Nov 22, 1971 · 404 U.S. 71Civil rights7–0Unanimous band

  43. Hoyt v. Florida368 U.S. 57Nov 20, 1961 · 368 U.S. 57Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
  44. Ballard et al. v. United States329 U.S. 187Dec 9, 1946 · 329 U.S. 187Civil rights6–36–3 band
Data notes

Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.

Report a correction

Official record

Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.