Opinion ID: 2686
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Strength of the Associational Interest

Text: The right to intimate association reflects the realization that individuals draw much of their emotional enrichment from close ties with others, ties that allow for the cultivation and transmittal of shared beliefs. Id. at 619, 104 S.Ct. 3244. The relationships that have been afforded the most vigorous protection include those involved in the creation and sustenance of a family  namely marriage, the begetting, raising, and education of children, and cohabitation with relatives. Id.; see, e.g., Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 98 S.Ct. 673, 54 L.Ed.2d 618 (1978) (marriage); Carey v. Population Servs. Int'l, 431 U.S. 678, 97 S.Ct. 2010, 52 L.Ed.2d 675 (1977) (procreation); Moore v. E. Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 97 S.Ct. 1932, 52 L.Ed.2d 531 (1977) (cohabitation with relatives). The Supreme Court has explained that these relationships exemplify what the right to intimate association is meant to protect, and the Court has cautioned that such relationships suggest some relevant limitations on the relationships that might be entitled to . . . constitutional protection. Roberts, 468 U.S. at 619, 104 S.Ct. 3244; see also Ohio v. Akron Ctr. for Reprod. Health, 497 U.S. 502, 520, 110 S.Ct. 2972, 111 L.Ed.2d 405 (1990) (describing the family as society's most intimate association). However, the Court has declined to restrict the right to intimate association to the family context. Instead of adopting a categorical approach, the Court has instructed that relationships must be locate[d] . . . on a spectrum from the most intimate to the most attenuated of personal attachments. Bd. of Dirs. of Rotary Int'l v. Rotary Club of Duarte, 481 U.S. 537, 546, 107 S.Ct. 1940, 95 L.Ed.2d 474 (1987) (quotation marks omitted). Criteria used to measure the strength of an association's interest in intimacy include size, purpose, selectivity, and whether others are excluded from critical aspects of the relationship. Id. We examine these particulars in the context of the Fraternity's claim. Size : The Fraternity currently has nineteen members, eighteen of whom are CSI students and one of whom is not. It aspires to one day have about fifty pledges per semester. But the Fraternity places no limit on membership size. The fact that the membership roll is not larger is due to the fact that CSI is primarily a commuter campus. Thus, the size limitation is the product of circumstances, not a desire to maintain intimacy. These characteristics render the Fraternity similar to other groups whose intimate-association interests were held to be weak. See, e.g., id. (The size of local Rotary Clubs ranges from fewer than 20 to more than 900. (emphasis added)); id. (There is no upper limit on the membership of any local Rotary Club.). Selectivity : The Fraternity employs some care in selecting recruits in order to ensure that all its members are compatible. Every prospective member goes through a screening interview that involves personal questions, and decisions about whom to invite are made in consultation with all current members. However, upon each year's graduation, the Fraternity presumably ceases to associate regularly with a quarter of its members and seeks to replace them with new members. Like the Rotary Clubs in Duarte, the Fraternity must keep a flow of prospects coming to make up for . . . attrition and gradually to enlarge the membership. Id. at 546, 107 S.Ct. 1940 (quotation marks omitted). The Fraternity thus aggressively recruits new members from the CSI student body. See Pi Lambda Phi Fraternity, Inc. v. Univ. of Pittsburgh, 229 F.3d 435, 442 (3d Cir.2000) (finding associational interest to be weak where chapter annually recruited new members). Fraternity members invite approximately one out of ten men they meet on campus  and about a third of the men they know through Jewish groups  to rush events. Most of those who attend a first rush event are invited back for later events, and the majority of those who attend multiple events are asked to pledge. Most, though not all, pledges are initiated as members. These figures indicate that a relatively high percentage of Jewish men at CSI who express an interest in the Fraternity are invited to join. The degree of selectivity displayed by the Fraternity in choosing new members thus compares unfavorably with that employed in creating the strongest of associational interests, as in the cases of marriage or adoption. Purpose : The Fraternity's purposes are generally inclusive. The Fraternity aims to foster and promote brotherly love, to inaugurate a spirit of cooperation and helpfulness, . . . [and] to encourage vigorous participation in university, college and general activities in [the] community. . . . The Fraternity hopes to promote in its members a respect for the traditional values of men's college social fraternities . . ., community service, and the expression of Jewish culture. These are broad, public-minded goals that do not depend for their promotion on close-knit bonds. See Duarte, 481 U.S. at 546-47, 107 S.Ct. 1940 (Rotary Club's goal, an inclusive fellowship for service based on diversity of interest, . . . does not suggest the kind of private or personal relationship to which we have accorded protection under the First Amendment. (quotation marks and citation omitted)). To be sure, the Fraternity also seeks to foster personal, intimate relationships between its members. According to its president, Fraternity brothers form deep attachments and commitments and share a community of thoughts, experiences, beliefs and distinctly personal aspects of their lives. But the same can be said of nearly any student group in which members become close friends. As the Supreme Court explained in rejecting a facial challenge to an anti-discrimination law that affected clubs with more than 400 members: It may well be that a considerable amount of private or intimate association occurs in such a setting, as is also true in many restaurants and other places of public accommodation, but that fact alone does not afford the entity as a whole any constitutional immunity to practice discrimination when the government has barred it from doing so. N.Y. State Club Ass'n, Inc. v. City of N.Y., 487 U.S. 1, 12, 108 S.Ct. 2225, 101 L.Ed.2d 1 (1988). Exclusion of Non-Members : It is true that some Fraternity activities take place only among its members. Decisions about whether to offer or revoke membership occur in private, as do the ceremonies in which prospective members become pledges and pledges become full members. Weekly business meetings and frequent informal gatherings also take place only in the presence of members. Nonetheless, the Fraternity involves non-members in several crucial aspects of its existence. Many rush events are held in public places such as local cafés or pool halls. During its February 2003 rush, the Fraternity planned several events requiring the interaction of current and prospective members with non-members  a party, as well as outings to a strip club, a karaoke bar, and a laser tag establishment. See Roberts, 468 U.S. at 621, 104 S.Ct. 3244 ([M]uch of the activity central to the formation and maintenance of the association involves the participation of strangers to that relationship.). Once they join, many Fraternity members attend public weekly meetings with the JAM and a rabbi. The Fraternity also participates with the JAM in other Jewish-themed events. See Pi Lambda Phi, 229 F.3d at 442 (finding associational interest to be weakened by chapter's participation in many public university events). The Fraternity gives parties, sometimes at a profit, at which non-members  including women  are encouraged to attend. See N.Y. State Club Ass'n, 487 U.S. at 12, 108 S.Ct. 2225 (regular receipt of payments from non-members is at least as significant in defining the non-private nature of these associations, because of the kind of role that strangers play in their ordinary existence, as is the regular participation of strangers at meetings). Social events involving non-members occur perhaps once or twice a month. Furthermore, the Fraternity seeks affiliation with AEPi, a national organization. Association with AEPi would involve the members to some extent in activities of the national group and would thus dilute the intimacy of the Fraternity. The Fraternity opposes admitting women at least in part because admitting them would make the Fraternity ineligible for this affiliation. The Fraternity's desire to associate itself with this national organization is in some tension with the purpose of the right to intimate association. The associational interests of the Fraternity differ from the interests asserted by the social groups that were plaintiffs in Louisiana Debating and Literary Association v. City of New Orleans, 42 F.3d 1483 (5th Cir.1995), on which the district court relied. In that case, the Fifth Circuit considered a New Orleans ordinance, which prohibited discrimination in places of public accommodation. The court found that when applied to certain social clubs, the ordinance violated the club members' right to intimate association. The court found a high degree of exclusive intimacy in the plaintiff clubs. The court noted that the clubs employed a very restrictive admissions process in which only existing members could propose a new member. Each club had its own unmarked, private facility, which non-members were strictly prohibited from using. Even the bringing of guests to the clubs was severely limited: The clubs prohibit[ed] . . . members from bringing or inviting any male guests, at any time and under any circumstances. Female guests [we]re permitted rarely, but usually, they [we]re the members' wives. Id. at 1496. The clubs had between 325 and 600 members, and each club placed a firm limit on the total number of members. The clubs' purpose was purely social, and any discussion of business was prohibited. In light of these factors, the Fifth Circuit concluded that the clubs were intimate associations entitled to a high degree of protection. Id. at 1495-98. Assuming without deciding that we would endorse the decision of Louisiana Debating, the Fraternity is distinguishable from the social clubs in that case. Though the Fraternity is smaller, it recruits more widely and aggressively, and it has no limit on total membership. Whereas the Louisiana Debating social clubs made no attempt to interact with the outside world  going so far as to keep their facilities unmarked, and substantially barring admission to non-members  the Fraternity regularly incorporates non-members into its activities, including the crucial rush process. Moreover, the Fraternity seeks official recognition from CSI and seeks to affiliate with AEPi. The clubs in Louisiana Debating shunned publicity, while the Fraternity makes its presence on campus visible and advertises its parties, from which it financially benefits. Based on its size, level of selectivity, purpose, and inclusion of non-members, the Fraternity lacks the characteristics that typify groups with strong claims to intimate association.