This article needs attention from an expert in Law. Please add a reason or a talk parameter to this template to explain the issue with the article. WikiProject Law may be able to help recruit an expert.(February 2015)
Minnesota's state antidiscrimination law prohibiting a private organization from excluding a person from membership based on sex is constitutional, because the state had a compelling interest in prohibiting discrimination which outweighed the First Amendment right of freedom of association.
Application of the Minnesota Human Rights Act to compel the Jaycees to accept women as regular members did not abridge either male members' freedom of intimate association or their freedom of expressive association.
The Act was not unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. Several features of the Jaycees, including its large size, unselective membership, and purpose, placed it outside the sphere of relationships protected by the First Amendment. The Court ruled that the State's compelling interest in combating gender discrimination justified the law's impact on the Jaycees' First Amendment rights.
Justice O'Connor wrote an opinion concurring with parts I and III of the Court's opinion and concurring in the judgment.