According to this article, "[t]he Boy Scouts built the historic structure in 1928 and then deeded it to the city, which in exchange agreed to let the scouts use it in perpetuity rent-free."

If the city really did agree to let the Scouts use the building rent-free in perpetuity in exchange for deeding the building to the city, this is a contract. States, or their subdivisions, are not allowed to pass laws that break contracts. See the U.S. Constitution, article 1, section 10, which states "No State shall ... pass any ... Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts...."

illegal contracts are not binding. The city of Philadelphia is not bound by contracts that violate law. It is illegal for the City of Philadelphia to subsidize organizations that discriminate. Philadelphia is willing to meets its contractual requirements as soon as the BSA complies with the law.

ex ipso facto, the agreement was made in 1928. before that law came into existance. you can't make the past illegal except in certain circumstances.

secondly the state law is trumped by federal law. remeber articale 7? the boy scouts of america are immune from that because they are a private organization. yes its federal only, but state law can only go above and beyond the natrual protection of the federal law, not in contradiction to it. and to let you know New York state is one of only a handful of states that actualy recognises and protects the rights of different sexual orientations, but only in a limited way.

and besides the boy scouts of america will always be descriminatory and as such by your logic will never be able to get their property back. or what about the girls scouts of america? what about ethnic clubs? (like the son's of italy) should they also be banned from recieving special considerations from the city? the list can go on and on and on of the groups that are naturally discriminatory in their practices.

makes a previously legal behavior illegal, it does, in fact, null the validity of the contract. So, for example, if the City of Philadelphia contracted with a liquor supplier prior to prohibition, that contract would be void when liquor became illegal. In Philadelphia, it is illegal to subsidize discrimination: therefore the BSA loses its subsidy as a matter of law., unless it stops discriminating.

The USSC ruling is inapposite. The BSA can do what it wants, but that does not mean that the City of Philadelphia (which is not a private organization, though it seems like it sometimes) is obliged to support them in opposition to city ordinance.

And I would wholeheartedly agree that no discriminatory organizations should get city subsidies. In fact, I don't think any private organization at all should be subsidized by the government. But if a private organization is going to accept a subsidy from the government, it had better expect to have to comply with laws and rules that govern the subsidy.

While what you said makes sense and I agree that no privae organization should be subsadised by the government, aside from educational grand and health research. I can't disagree more. The BSA built the building with the following understanding. They would recieve rent-free rooms in which to conduct their legal business. The BSA of today now face a rule that in effect effect tells them to either get out or change your rules.

The part that troubles me the most about this, is that it feels like the city is able to strong arm private organizations to match public policy when it has no real right to do so. I know its not really 1984ish in any sort, but it does piss me off.

But what the ultimatum that the state has put down really does set up a problem for the state. I doubt the BSA will change their policy any time soon, so they will probably be forced to pay the $200,000 per year rent. Which violates the terms and agreements set up when the city was offered the building. I see that as a reason for the city to just give the building over to the BSA and just be done with it.

I'm just worried that the KofC might be next if this does go through.

a standard called the "rule against perpetuity." Any real claim that the BSA can have the land forever runs afoul of this premise. Any contract or agreement (and especially a will) that tries to violate this rule is typically found to be null. Basically a piece of land can only be encumbered for the span of "any person life time that is now in existence." (I don't recall the exact wording).

Had they put into the deed to the property as a covenant that it was to be only used for the boy scouts, it might fly, but even then, many covenants that were legal but discriminatory (like you cannot sell this land to blacks or jews) are ineffective, even though they were legal at the time.

It is possible that courts look at government grants differently...right of ways for rail roads, for example, seem to trump this rule, but I think that is in the deeds of the property that run with the land, not a contractual agreement.

I like the Boy Scouts and don't like seeing them dragged through the mud, but I do think they are on the wrong side of history on this, and they will pay the price...just as if they didn't want black scoutmasters. And I don't think they have a sufficient legal case to fight it.

Ok let's straighten out a few things:

-It's not "ex ipso facto," it's "ex post facto", and it's relevant to criminal punishment, not contract law.

-The Rule Against Perpetuities applies to conveyances, not contracts, and in any case has an exception for charities, such as the BSA. In addition, the Rule was repealed in Pennsylvania in 2006

-Finally, let's get back to the original point: the Contract Clause of the Constitution. Clown_nose's answer at 1:34 completely misses the point of the contract clause. Read Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. 518 (1819), or even more on point, United States Trust Co. v. New Jersey, 431 U.S. 1 (1977), in which the Court held that the state of New Jersey tried to pass a law repealing a covenant the state had entered into, the state violated the Contract Clause.

Good information on the rule against perpetuity.

The NJ case, however, is not on point: Philadelphia did not revoke anything with regard to the contract: had they passed an ordinance that revoked the contract, it would apply. What they did was pass an ordinance of general applicability, that applies to everyone, including the boy scouts. The boy scouts are free to enjoy their contract so long as they comply with the law. It is clear from the history that the ordinance was not passed as a way around the contract, as it was not applied for some years to this situation.

Every law ever passed interferes with a contract somewhere. The prohibition is against using law to nullify a contract, not to prevent governments from being able to write and enforce laws of general applicability.

You're right that the Philadelphia law is a law of general application. Does that make it exempt from the Contract Clause? If, in United States Trust Co., the state had instead passed a law that repealed all transportation laws, would the voiding of the contract have been valid? It still would have impaired the obligation of contract in question. As the Court said in that case "the Contract Clause limits otherwise legitimate exercises of state legislative authority, and the existence of an important public interest is not always sufficient to overcome that limitation."

Philadelphia's heart may be in the right place (although I think its motives are more related to the fact that the land is valuable for the first time in years and the city has a budget deficit) but its obligation to honor contracts is sacrosanct.

(b) The security provision of the 1962 covenant was purely a financial [p2] obligation, and thus not necessarily a compromise of the States' reserved powers that cannot be contracted away. Pp. 21-25.

The state cannot contract away its powers: Philadelphia did not pass its anti-discrimination policy as a financial issue, and the Boy Scouts are not exempt from this ordinance based on a contract...if that were true, there would be opportunities for all kinds of shenanigans where municipalities and other governments contract with favored businesses and then change the law to apply to everyone else.

But the point of the City's actions isn't to make the BSA accept gays -- the Supreme Court already struck down a similar New Jersey law in BSA v. Dale. The City wants to raise the rent, which is financial, and is therefore barred.

is not allowed, by ordinance, to subsidize organizations that discriminate. To continue the practice is illegal.

They are willing to subsidize the Boy Scouts when the organization ceases discriminating. Alternatively, they will allow the Boy Scouts to rent at market rates.

The New Jersey case claimed that the boy scouts itself was a public accomodation, like a hotel or restaurant. Philadelphia makes no such claim: it claims that the Boy scouts are a private organization that discriminates, and by ordinance is ineligible for subsidy. It is not forcing the scouts to accept gays: it is merely applying a law that prevents public subsidy of an organization that does not accept gays.

The BSA built the building on the city's land, and then gave the building to the city. In return, they got to keep using both the land and the building they built in perpetuity and a nominal rent. How is that a subsidy? It resembles an annuity more than anything else.

If the BSA keep the use of the building and the land, the BSA gave up nothing. Plus they aren't paying taxes on the property, since they don't own it.

If I could deed my house and land to the city in return for free or nominal rent and no taxes for perpetuity, I would do it in a second.

It would be interesting to know who was maintaining it.

The BSA maintains it. I knew the old maintenance guy, who has since retired.

Would you really give away your land to the city just to avoid tax? I kind of like the idea of having a freehold, myself.