Decision: Cuffley v. Mickes (1999)

Ku Klux Klan and Free Speech

• Court Decisions • Newest Cases • Religious Holidays • Schools & Religion • Government & Religion • Church Disputes • Creationism • Jehovah's Witnesses • Minority Religions • Privacy • Free Speech

• Site Resources • Main Site Index • What is Atheism? • Religion & Theism • Skepticism & Logic • Arguments for / against Gods • Evolution vs. Creationism • Religious Timelines • Hate Mail • Glossary • Book Reviews

• Chat Room Join others in the Agnosticism/Atheism chat!

• Discussion Forum Do you have an opinion about this page? Make it known on the Discussion Forum!

Does Free Speech extend even to those groups generally considered hateful and unacceptable by the public? Should all groups, whatever their political positions, be allowed to participate fully in government programs? Those questions were tested in this case, which pitted the Ku Klux Klan against a state government that didn't want them to receive the publicity which usually accompanies participation in an Adopt-A-Highway program.

Background Information

The Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, Realm of Missouri, and Michael Cuffley in his capacity as its Unit Recruiter filed a lawsuit against the state of Missouri and the Missouri Highway and Transportation Commission because the Klan's application to participate in the state's Adopt-A-Highway program was denied. At first, the state didn't take official action on the application and sought court approval to prevent the Klan from participating. This was dismissed and then the state acted on the application, denying it and giving the following as its reasons:

1. The Knights of the Ku Klux Klan does not adhere to all state and federal nondiscrimination laws in that it discriminates on the basis of race, religion, color and national origin.
2. The Knights of the Ku Klux Klan has a history of unlawfully violent and criminal behavior.
3. 42 USC2000(d)4a(I)(A) [Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964] prohibits Missouri Department of Transportation from conferring a benefit to the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan because of the Knights' discriminatory practices, and granting the application would confer such a benefit in contravention of federal law.
4. Executive Order 94-03 prohibits state agencies from allowing discriminatory practices on state facilities and prohibits contracting with an organization that discriminates, and, therefore, prohibits the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan from participating in this program.
5. The district has placed a moratorium on adoptions oninterstate highways within the City of St. Louis.

After this, the Klan filed suit in court, alleging that they were being discriminated against and that their rights to free speech were being violated.

Court Decision

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Klan, stating that they had been treated different from other applicants from the very beginning of the process. The statewide coordinator for the program even admitted that this was the case during the legal proceedings. Moreover, it was undisputed that this special treatment was due solely to the Klan's political and social views:

There are repeated admissions from the State's designee on these points, including the surprising admission that the State thinks it has the right to deny an application on the basis of the applicant's beliefs.

...absent a convincing and constitutional reason for the denial, the evidence leaves us with but one conclusion: that the State denied the Klan's application based on the Klan's beliefs and advocacy. For the last fifty years, the Supreme Court has made it clear that such a denial is unconstitutional...

Significance

This decision reinformces the legal and constitutional principle that even though a person has no "right" to a valuable governmental benefit and that even though the government may deny the benefit for any number of reasons, there are some reasons upon which the government may not rely.

In this case, the governemnt may not deny a benefit to a person on a basis that infringes his constitutionally protected interests - especially, his interest in freedom of speech. If the government could deny a benefit to a person because of his constitutionally protected speech or associations, his exercise of those freedoms would in effect be penalized and inhibited. This would allow the government to "produce a result which [it] could not command directly." Such interference with constitutional rights is impermissible.