FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

March 9, 2004

Supreme Court Upholds Exclusion of Boy Scouts

Supreme Court Lets Stand Connecticut's Exclusion of Boy Scouts from State Charitable Campaign

(Connecticut) The U.S. Supreme Court turned down the Boy Scouts of America’s appeal of a ruling that the State of Connecticut may exclude the Boy Scouts from the State Employee Charitable Campaign because of their anti-gay policy. Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), having intervened in the matter at the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (along with the Connecticut Women’s Education and Legal Fund and the Connecticut Coalition for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Civil Rights), applauds the result.

GLAD senior staff attorney Jennifer L. Levi commented, “It is now abundantly clear that as long as the Boy Scouts retain their anti-gay policy, they may not receive special privileges from the state. We are proud of Connecticut for standing behind its non-discrimination law and, in so doing, protecting all its citizens, including and especially gay youth.”

This case resulted after the Connecticut Comptroller, who oversees the charitable campaign, took action to exclude the Boy Scouts following the United States Supreme Court ruling that the organization has the right to discriminate against gay leaders in the case of Dale v. BSA. The motivation behind the Comptroller’s action in excluding the Boy Scouts was to ensure proper and robust administration of the state Gay Rights Law, a law that prohibits use of state facilities in furtherance of discrimination, including based on sexual orientation. The federal district court upheld the exclusion and the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit agreed in July, 2003. The Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari leaves these rulings intact, thus removing any question as to the State of Connecticut’s authority to exclude the Boy Scouts from the campaign.

Levi added, “The courts have clarified that while the Scouts may be legally permitted to discriminate, there are consequences for them in other areas, and those consequences do not infringe their rights.”