opening membership to leading business and professional women in the community, Rotary Clubs are likely to obtain a more representative cross section of community leaders with a broadened capacity for service."

Even if the Unruh Act does work some slight infringement on Rotary members' right of expressive association, that infringement is justified because it serves the State's compelling interest in eliminating discrimination against women. See Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1, 25 (1976) (per curiam) (right of association may be limited by state regulations necessary to serve a compelling interest unrelated to the suppression of ideas). On its face the Unruh Act, like the Minnesota public accommodations law we considered in Roberts, makes no distinctions on the basis of the organization's viewpoint. Moreover, public accommodations laws "plainly serv[e] compelling state interests of the highest order." 468 U. S., at 624. In Roberts we recognized that the State's compelling interest in assuring equal access to women extends to the acquisition of leadership skills and business contacts as well as tangible goods and services. Id., at 626. The Unruh Act plainly serves this interest. We therefore hold that application of the Unruh Act to California Rotary Clubs does not violate the right of expressive association afforded by the First Amendment.8

III

Finally, appellants contend that the Unruh Act is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. We conclude that these contentions were not properly presented to the state courts.

In 1980 women were reported to make up 40.6 percent of the managerial and professional labor force in the United States. U. S. Department of Commerce, Statistical Abstract of the United States 400 (1986).

• Appellants assert that admission of women will impair Rotary's effectiveness as an international organization. This argument is undercut by the fact that the legal effect of the judgment of the California Court of Appeal is limited to the State of California. See supra, at 543. Appellants' argument also is undermined by the fact that women already attend the Rotary Clubs' meetings and participate in many of their activities.

It is well settled that this Court will not review a final judgment of a state court unless "the record as a whole shows either expressly or by clear implication that the federal claim was adequately presented in the state system." Webb v. Webb, 451 U. S. 493, 496-497 (1981). Appellants did not present the issues squarely to the state courts until they filed their petition for rehearing with the Court of Appeal. The court denied the petition without opinion. When ""the highest state court has failed to pass upon a federal question, it will be assumed that the omission was due to want of proper presentation in the state courts, unless the aggrieved party in this Court can affirmatively show the contrary.""" Exxon Corp. v. Eagerton, 462 U. S. 176, 181, n. 3 (1983) (quoting Fuller v. Oregon, 417 U. S. 40, 50, n. 11 (1974) (in turn quoting Street v. New York, 394 U. S. 576, 582 (1969))). Appellants have made no such showing in this case.

IV

9

The judgment of the Court of Appeal of California is affirmed.

JUSTICE SCALIA concurs in the judgment.

It is so ordered.

JUSTICE BLACKMUN and JUSTICE O'CONNOR took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

• Appellants point to a passage in the brief they filed in the California Court of Appeal that quotes this Court's opinion in NAACP v. Button, 371 U. S. 415, 435 (1963): "It is enough [for unconstitutionality] that a vague and broad statute lends itself to selective enforcement against unpopular causes.'" Brief for Respondents in B001663 (Cal. Ct. App.), p. 26 (brackets in original) (quoted in Brief for Appellants 37-37). The quotation occurs in the course of an argument that the Unruh Act should be applied only to memberships in entities that are a vehicle for the public sale of goods, services, or commercial advantages. This casual reference to a federal case, in the midst of an unrelated argument, is insufficient to inform a state court that it has been presented with a claim subject to our appellate jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § 1257(2).

Syllabus

PENNSYLVANIA v. FINLEY

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

No. 85-2099. Argued March 2, 1987-Decided May 18, 1987

Respondent was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment in a Pennsylvania trial court, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed on direct appeal. In respondent's subsequent postconviction proceedings, the trial court, as required by state law, appointed counsel to assist her. Counsel reviewed the trial record; consulted with respondent; concluded that there were no arguable bases for collateral review; advised the trial court in writing of his conclusion; and requested permission to withdraw. After reviewing the record, the court agreed that there were no arguably meritorious issues and dismissed the proceedings. Respondent acquired new appointed counsel and appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court, which concluded that counsel's conduct in the trial court violated respondent's constitutional rights, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Superior Court relied on Anders v. California, 386 U. S. 738, which held that (1) when an attorney appointed to represent an indigent defendant on direct appeal finds the case to be wholly frivolous he must request the court's permission to withdraw and submit a brief referring to anything in the record arguably supporting the appeal, (2) a copy of the brief must be furnished the indigent and time must be allowed for him to raise any points that he chooses, and (3) the court itself must then decide whether the case is wholly frivolous.

Held: The court below improperly relied on the Federal Constitution to extend the Anders procedures to these collateral postconviction proceedings. Denial of counsel to indigents on first appeal as of right amounts to discrimination against the poor in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and Anders established a prophylactic framework that is relevant when, and only when, a litigant has a previously established constitutional right to counsel. The right to appointed counsel extends to only the first appeal of right, and since a defendant has no federal constitutional right to counsel when pursuing a discretionary appeal on direct review of his conviction, Ross v. Moffitt, 417 U. S. 600, a fortiori, he has no such right when attacking, in postconviction proceedings, a conviction that has become final upon exhaustion of the appellate process. The Anders procedures do not apply to a state-created right to counsel on postconviction review just because they are applied to the right to counsel on first appeal as of right. Respondent's access to a lawyer was the

result of the State's decision, not the command of the Federal Constitution. The procedures followed by her trial counsel in the postconviction proceedings fully comported with the fundamental fairness mandated by the Due Process Clause. States have no obligation to provide postconviction relief, and when they do, the fundamental fairness mandated by the Due Process Clause does not require that the State supply a lawyer as well. Nor was the equal protection guarantee of meaningful access violated in this case. Moreover, there is no merit to respondent's contention that once the State has granted a prisoner access to counsel on postconviction review, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that counsel's actions comport with the Anders procedures. Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U. S. 387, distinguished. Pennsylvania made a valid choice to give prisoners the assistance of counsel in postconviction proceedings without requiring the full panoply of procedural protections that the Constitution requires be given to defendants who are in a fundamentally different position-at trial and on first appeal as of right. Pp. 554-559.

330 Pa. Super. 313, 479 A. 2d 568, reversed and remanded.

REHNQUIST, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which WHITE, POWELL, O'CONNOR, and SCALIA, JJ., joined. BLACKMUN, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, post, p. 559. BRENNAN, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which MARSHALL, J., joined, post, p. 559. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 570.

Gaele McLaughlin Barthold argued the cause for petitioner. With her on the briefs were Ann C. Lebowitz, Ronald Eisenberg, and William G. Chadwick, Jr.

Catherine M. Harper, by appointment of the Court, 479 U. S. 928, argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent.*

*Linley E. Pearson, Attorney General of Indiana, and William E. Daily and Lisa M. Paunicka, Deputy Attorneys General, filed a brief for the State of Indiana et al. as amici curiae urging reversal, joined by officials for their respective States as follows: John Van de Kamp, Attorney General of California, John J. Kelly, Chief State's Attorney for Connecticut, Charles M. Oberly, Attorney General of Delaware, Jim Smith, Attorney General of Florida, Corinne K. A. Watanabe, Attorney General of Hawaii, Jim Jones, Attorney General of Idaho, Robert T. Stephan, Attorney General of Kansas, David L. Armstrong, Attorney General of Kentucky, William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of Louisiana, William L. Webster, Attorney General of Missouri, Travis Medlock, Attorney General of South

CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST delivered the opinion of the Court.

In 1975 respondent was convicted of second-degree murder by the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. She was sentenced to life imprisonment. Her appointed trial attorney appealed the conviction to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. That court unanimously affirmed the conviction. 477 Pa. 211, 383 A. 2d 898 (1978). Having failed on direct appeal, respondent, proceeding pro se, sought relief from the trial court under the Pennsylvania Post Conviction Hearing Act. See 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. §9541 et seq. (1982). She raised the same issues that the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania had rejected on the merits. The trial court denied relief, but the State Supreme Court reversed, holding that respondent was entitled, under state law, to appointed counsel in her postconviction proceedings. 497 Pa. 332, 440 A. 2d 1183 (1981). On remand, the trial court appointed counsel. Counsel reviewed the trial record and consulted with respondent. He concluded that there were no arguable bases for collateral relief. Accordingly, he advised the trial court in writing of his conclusion and requested permission to withdraw. The trial court conducted an independent review of the record and agreed that there were no issues even arguably meritorious. The court thus dismissed the petition for postconviction relief.

Respondent acquired new appointed counsel and pursued an appeal to the Superior Court. Over a dissent, that court concluded that the conduct of the counsel in the trial court's postconviction proceedings violated respondent's constitu

Carolina, Mary Sue Terry, Attorney General of Virginia, Bronson C. LaFollette, Attorney General of Wisconsin, and Archie G. McClintock, Attorney General of Wyoming.

Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the American Civil Liberties Union et al. by Larry W. Yackle, Alvin J. Bronstein, Vivian O. Berger, David Goldstein, and Stefan Presser; and for the National Legal Aid and Defender Association by David P. Bergschneider.