While the twenty-first amendment rationale of LaRue appears to pose a threat to certain individual rights, that amendment has been recognized by at least one state supreme court as a legitimate vehicle for combating racial discrimination in private clubs'--an area of discrimination generally regarded as beyond the reach of government and probably involving fundamental rights of association and privacy. Because of the dual potential of the state power found in the twenty-first amendment and the questionable desirability of the use of that power, this article evaluates the LaRue decision, explores its unusual twenty-first amendment rationale, considers alternative approaches the Court might have employed,and assesses the decision's future impact. Secondly, the article considers the capacity of the state--with or without LaRue--to curtail discriminatory membership policies of private organizations and includes a discussion of the related rights of privacy and association.
Robert D. Kamenshine,
California v. LaRue: the Twenty-First Amendment as a Preferred Power,
26 Vanderbilt Law Review
Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol26/iss5/4