Opinion ID: 2622018
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: The Act Violates the Post Home's Right of Intimate Association [14]

Text: ś 95 The United States Supreme Court has recognized the fundamental right to enter into and carry on certain intimate associations absent government intrusion. Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 617, 104 S.Ct. 3244, 82 L.Ed.2d 462 (1984) observed two distinct aspects of the freedom to associate. In the first line of cases, the Court has recognized a right to associate for the purpose of engaging in those activities protected by the First Amendmentâ speech, assembly, petition for the redress of grievances, and the exercise of religion. Id. at 618, 104 S.Ct. 3244. In the second line of cases, however, the Court has concluded that choices to enter into and maintain certain intimate human relationships must be secured against undue intrusion by the State because of the role of such relationships in safeguarding the individual freedom that is central to our constitutional scheme. Id. at 617-18, 104 S.Ct. 3244. In this second category of decisions, freedom of association receives protection as a fundamental element of personal liberty under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. at 618, 104 S.Ct. 3244. We find ourselves in this second line. ś 96 Every case cited by the majority addressed the issue under the general social associative rights of the First Amendment, not the specific intimate associative rights of the Fourteenth Amendment, a critical distinction. See majority at 322-23 (citing City of Tuscon v. Grezaffi, 200 Ariz. 130, 136, 23 P.3d 675 (Ct.App.2001) (dismissing a challenge based on `generalized right of social association under the First Amendment' (quoting Kahn v. Thompson, 185 Ariz. 408, 414, 916 P.2d 1124 (Ct.App.1995)))); NYC C.L.A.S.H., Inc. v. City of New York, 315 F.Supp.2d 461, 472 (S.D.N.Y.2004) (CLASH does not suggest that the gathering of individuals in bars and restaurants to engage in social or even business activities while smoking is the type of `intimate' relationships that the Supreme Court contemplated in Roberts.. . .); Taverns for Tots, Inc. v. City of Toledo, 341 F.Supp.2d 844, 850-51 (N.D.Ohio 2004) (dismissing the intimate association claim and focusing instead on the First Amendment right of association); Players, Inc. v. City of New York, 371 F.Supp.2d 522, 545 (S.D.N.Y.2005) (analyzing the claim as one under the First Amendment). Therefore, to the extent these cases discuss or analyze an inapposite right, they are not applicable to the resolution of the issue here. ś 97 Intimate associations are those that include deep attachments and commitments to the necessarily few other individuals with whom one shares not only a special community of thoughts, experiences, and beliefs but also distinctively personal aspects of one's life. Roberts, 468 U.S. at 620, 104 S.Ct. 3244; see also City of Bremerton v. Widell, 146 Wash.2d 561, 576-77, 51 P.3d 733 (2002). This court has decline[d] to hold that the right of intimate association is limited solely to familial relationships. Id. at 577, 51 P.3d 733; see also Bd. of Dirs. of Rotary Int'l, 481 U.S. at 545-46, 107 S.Ct. 1940. In determining whether a particular association is sufficiently personal or private to warrant constitutional protection, we consider factors such as size, purpose, selectivity, and whether others are excluded from critical aspects of the relationship. Id. at 546, 107 S.Ct. 1940 (citing Roberts, 468 U.S. at 620, 104 S.Ct. 3244). ś 98 The question of whether the Post Home is an intimate association cannot be seriously debated. Membership in the Post Home is limited to veterans and Merchant Marines who served this nation during times of armed conflict. For centuries the brotherhood of soldiers has been recognized: We few, we happy few, we band of brothers; For he to-day that sheds his blood with me Shall be my brother. Be he ne'er so vile, This day shall gentle his condition; And gentlemen in England now abed Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here, And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's Day.[ [15] ] This brotherhood is forged in battle, tempered by that common experience, and shaped by the mutual empathy of life afterward. Those who have not experienced armed conflict ought to be the first to recognize the intimacy created by that unique experience, not contest its existence. [16] ś 99 Once properly recognized, the question becomes whether the smoking ban represents an undue intrusion by the State. . . . Roberts, 468 U.S. at 618, 104 S.Ct. 3244. In the context of the familial relationship, an undue intrusion exists when the State imposes itself into the decision making process of the family, including the decision of whether to become a family. Id. at 619-20, 104 S.Ct. 3244 (citing cases). ś 100 To pick up this analytical cue, the question becomes whether the smoking ban is an imposition into the decision making process of the Post Home or its members, including the decision to enter into or maintain a relationship with the Post Home. ś 101 According to the majority, `it is difficult to see how the social intercourse, and social intimacy, that the club seeks to facilitate could be unconstitutionally infringed merely because the meeting place provided by the club can no longer allow indoor smoking.' Majority at 323 (quoting Players, 371 F.Supp.2d at 545). ś 102 Yet if smoking were banned at the Post Home, its members would feel forced to eliminate or severely curtail their use of. . . the Post Home. . . . If smoking was banned, the Post would lose members who would go elsewhere. . . . Clerk's Papers (CP) at 105 (Decl. of Robert Kucenski). Even deployed together. It is not the common enemy that binds these veterans in brotherhood but the common experience. The bullets may be European, Asian, or Middle Eastern, but the intimacy is universal. the State agrees the smoking ban may influence members of the Post Home to disperse and go elsewhere. Br. of Resp't at 15. Moreover, it is reasonable to infer the smoking ban may influence a potential member's choice to join the Post Home. [17] Acknowledging all the parties understand how the smoking ban influences the members and potential members of the Post Home, the difficulty of the majority to see how the smoking ban infringes the right of intimate association is irrelevant to all but the majority and its preferred result. ś 103 When the State imposes itself into the decision making process of the members or potential members of the Post Home, the State unduly intrudes into the Post Home's right of intimate association. I would hold the Act invalid as applied. However, the Act is also invalid as a deprivation of substantive due process.