Moose Lodge No

.docx

School

Lone Star College System, North Harris *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

4021

Subject

History

Date

Apr 3, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by BarristerHeron1248

Abbey Jo Moyar Brief I. Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis (1972) II. 407 U.S 163 (1972) III. Facts: A white member in good standing of the Harrisburg, PA Moose Lodge brought a black guest with him to dinner. K. Leroy Irvis was a member of the PA state legislature. Lodge 107 was affiliated with the national Moose Organization and held to the standards of Supreme Lodge. The standards of supreme lodge were that only Caucasian members were allowed and only Caucasians could be served in the facility. Irvis filed a suit stating that sense the state of PA gave them a liquor license then they condone this racially discriminatory policy. He claimed that this violated his 14 th amendment right to equal protection. He won the federal case, and the lodge appealed. IV. Issue: Does the segregation and “Caucasians only” policy of Moose Lodge violate the 14 th Amendment equal protection clause? V. Decision: No. Reversed and Remanded VI. Reasoning: Per Rehnquist. The Moose Lodge organization is a private club. It has defined rules required for membership. They are allowed to uphold certain rules and regulations that others can’t. This action does not violate the 14 th amendment under these circumstances because there is no reasonable amount to state action. The club is in no way a reflection of the PA’s beliefs. The state is in no way a partner or in a joint venture with the club, so therefore there is no reasonable or reliable state action. That means that the PA liquor licensing board has nothing to do with the logistics of the rules and regulations of the club. VII. Dissent: Per Brennan. When the Moose Lodge Obtained its liquor license the state of PA became directly involved in the operation of the bar within the Moose Lodge. They are revenue makers and bring money into the state therefore there is reasonable state action involved with how the state should obtain their money. The state could not be more involved when it comes to the logistics of licensing something. The liquor regulations are made an upheld by the state of PA which means that there is significant reason for the state to be involved with the licensing and regulations. Through this legislation the state is directly involved with these racially discriminatory actions. VIII. Summary: K. Leroy Irvis was denied service and access at a Moose Lodge in Harrisburg, PA. He was a black man, and the club only served and allowed Caucasians. The man who brought him to the club was a white man. He sued under the right that this was a violation of his 14 th amendment right. The federal court agreed and stated that with the Moose Lodge holding a liquor license that the state of PA held a direct involvement with racially discriminatory actions. The lodge appealed and claimed that they were a private establishment, and had nothing to do with state action, it was just what they wanted to have as a policy in their club. The Supreme Court ruled that there was no state action in this case because the liquor licensing board has nothing to do with private establishments and their rules and regulations, it just issues the licenses based on qualifying actions.

Discover more documents: Sign up today!

Unlock a world of knowledge! Explore tailored content for a richer learning experience. Here's what you'll get:

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help