Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System v. Southworth

Last updated
Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System v. Southworth
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued November 9, 1999
Decided March 22, 2000
Full case nameBoard of Regents of Univ. of Wis. System v. Southworth
Citations529 U.S. 217 ( more )
120 S. Ct. 1346; 146 L. Ed. 2d 193; 2000 U.S. LEXIS 2196; 68 U.S.L.W. 4220; 2000 Cal. Daily Op. Service 2265; 2000 Daily Journal DAR 3049; 2000 Colo. J. C.A.R. 1471; 13 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 197
Case history
PriorSouthworth v. Grebe, 151 F.3d 717 (7th Cir. 1998); rehearing denied, 157 F.3d 1124 (7th Cir. 1998); cert. granted, 526 U.S. 1038(1999).
Holding
Public universities may subsidize campus groups by means of a mandatory student activity fee without violating the students' First Amendment rights.
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens  · Sandra Day O'Connor
Antonin Scalia  · Anthony Kennedy
David Souter  · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg  · Stephen Breyer
Case opinions
MajorityKennedy, joined by Rehnquist, O'Connor, Scalia, Thomas, Ginsburg
ConcurrenceSouter (in judgment), joined by Stevens, Breyer
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. I

Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System v. Southworth, 529 U.S. 217 (2000), is a ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States which held that public universities may subsidize campus groups by means of a mandatory student activity fee without violating the students' First Amendment rights. [1]

Contents

Background

On April 2, 1996, three law students at the University of Wisconsin–Madison sued in federal court challenging the constitutionality of the university's mandatory student fee system, arguing that it was unconstitutional for portions of their student fee to fund political or ideological activities with which they disagreed. The plaintiff students were particularly concerned with multi-cultural groups, environmental groups, and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender groups. The Board of Regents and the university system defended the fee system.

On November 29, 1996, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin in Southworth v. Grebe granted summary judgment in favor of the three law students. The district court ruled that the fee system violated the students' free-speech rights by compelling them to fund speech they disagreed with. On August 10, 1998, a three-judge panel of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Southworth v. Grebe upheld the district court decision in favor of the three students. [2] The appeals court panel concluded that the university funding of private political speech was not germane to its mission and that even if it were the university did not have a compelling reason to require students to fund speech they opposed.

On October 27, 1998, the full 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied a petition for rehearing. The University of Wisconsin appealed the case to the Supreme Court, arguing that the marketplace of ideas created by student fees is an appropriate and important part of the school's educational mission. On March 29, 1999, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari because the 7th Circuit's decision conflicted with precedent established in other circuit courts.

On March 22, 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously overturned the 7th Circuit ruling that ruled mandatory student fees unconstitutional. Mandatory student fees currently fund a diverse array of activities ranging from lecture series to health services to the student newspaper. The Supreme Court's ruling provided a legal framework for a student fee system that engages students on issues ranging all over the political, social, and activist spectrum.

Summary of the ruling

The Court held that the government can require public university students to pay a student activity fee even if the fee is used to support political and ideological speech by student groups whose beliefs are offensive to the student, as long as the program is viewpoint neutral.

The opinion of the Supreme Court, written by Justice Kennedy, made these key points:

"Viewpoint neutrality" and the First Amendment

When the Court states that funds must be allocated in a viewpoint-neutral manner, it means that funding decisions cannot be based on a particular group or activity's point of view. Thus, the decision to fund or not to fund an organization cannot be contingent on the content of the group's message. This method of allocating funds protects students' free speech rights by ensuring that all viewpoints, including those that are controversial, have an equal chance to receive student fee funding. However, the concept of viewpoint neutrality has been subject to misinterpretation:

The Court makes "no distinction between the on and off-campus activities" of student organizations and states that "universities possess significant interests in encouraging students to take advantage of the social, civic, cultural, and religious opportunities available in surrounding communities and throughout the country."

See also

Related Research Articles

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court that defined First Amendment rights of students in U.S. public schools. The Tinker test, also known as the "substantial disruption" test, is still used by courts today to determine whether a school's interest to prevent disruption infringes upon students' First Amendment rights.

A students' union, also known by many other names, is a student organization present in many colleges, universities, and high schools. In higher education, the students' union is often accorded its own building on the campus, dedicated to social, organizational activities, representation, and academic support of the membership.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Freedom of speech in the United States</span>

In the United States, freedom of speech and expression is strongly protected from government restrictions by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, many state constitutions, and state and federal laws. Freedom of speech, also called free speech, means the free and public expression of opinions without censorship, interference and restraint by the government. The term "freedom of speech" embedded in the First Amendment encompasses the decision what to say as well as what not to say. The Supreme Court of the United States has recognized several categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment and has recognized that governments may enact reasonable time, place, or manner restrictions on speech. The First Amendment's constitutional right of free speech, which is applicable to state and local governments under the incorporation doctrine, prevents only government restrictions on speech, not restrictions imposed by private individuals or businesses unless they are acting on behalf of the government. However, It can be restricted by time, place and manner in limited circumstances. Some laws may restrict the ability of private businesses and individuals from restricting the speech of others, such as employment laws that restrict employers' ability to prevent employees from disclosing their salary to coworkers or attempting to organize a labor union.

A student fee or student activity fee is a fee charged to students at a school, college, university or other place of learning that is in addition to any matriculation and/or tuition fees. It may be charged to support student organizations and student activities or for intercollegiate programs such as intramural sports or visiting academics; or, at a public university or college, as a means to remedy shortfalls in state funding. Further fees may then be charged for features and facilities such as insurance, health and parking provision.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">John M. Rogers</span> American judge

John Marshall Rogers is a Senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819 (1995), was an opinion by the Supreme Court of the United States regarding whether a state university might, consistent with the First Amendment, withhold from student religious publications funding provided to similar secular student publications. The University of Virginia provided funding to every student organization that met funding-eligibility criteria, which Wide Awake, the student religious publication, fulfilled. The university's defense claimed that denying student activity funding of the religious magazine was necessary to avoid the University's violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Good News Club v. Milford Central School, 533 U.S. 98 (2001), was a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that held that, when a government operates a "limited public forum," it may not discriminate against speech that takes place within that forum on the basis of the viewpoint which it expresses—in this case, against religious speech engaged in by an evangelical Christian club for children.

The government speech doctrine, in American constitutional law, says that the government is not infringing the free speech rights of individual people when the government declines to use viewpoint neutrality in its own speech. More generally, the degree to which governments have free speech rights remains unsettled, including the degree of free speech rights that states may have under the First Amendment versus federal speech restrictions.

Neutrality is the tendency not to side in a conflict, which may not suggest neutral parties do not have a side or are not a side themselves. In colloquial use neutral can be synonymous with unbiased. However, bias is a favoritism for some side, distinct of the tendency to act on that favoritism.

The issue of school speech or curricular speech as it relates to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution has been the center of controversy and litigation since the mid-20th century. The First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech applies to students in the public schools. In the landmark decision Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, the U.S. Supreme Court formally recognized that students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate".

<i>Gay Student Services v. Texas A&M University</i>

Gay Student Services v. Texas A&M University, 737 F.2d 1317 is a court case in which the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that the First Amendment required public universities to recognize student organizations aimed at gay students. In 1976, Texas A&M University denied official recognition to the Gay Student Services Organization on the grounds that homosexuality was illegal in Texas, and the group's stated goals—offering referral services and providing educational information to students—were actually the responsibility of university staff. The students sued the university for violation of their First Amendment right to freedom of speech in February 1977. For six years, the case wound its way through the courts; although the trial court ruled in favor of Texas A&M several times, the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals repeatedly overturned the verdict. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to take the case, letting stand the circuit court ruling that the students' free speech rights had been compromised.

Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, 561 U.S. 661 (2010), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld, against a First Amendment challenge, the policy of the University of California, Hastings College of the Law, governing official recognition of student groups, which required the groups to accept all students regardless of their status or beliefs in order to obtain recognition.

Legal Services Corp. v. Velazquez, 531 U.S. 533 (2001), is a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States concerning the constitutionality of funding restrictions imposed by the United States Congress. At issue were restrictions on the Legal Services Corporation (LSC), a private, nonprofit corporation established by Congress. The restrictions prohibited LSC attorneys from representing clients attempting to amend existing welfare law. The case was brought by Carmen Velazquez, whose LSC-funded attorneys sought to challenge existing welfare provisions since they believed that it was the only way to get Velazquez financial relief.

The Associated Students of the University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa (ASUH) is the undergraduate student government representing the 10,000+ full-time, classified, undergraduate students at the University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa. ASUH was chartered by the University of Hawaiʻi Board of Regents in 1912 and was originally named the Associated Students of the College of Hawai'i.

Missouri Public Interest Research Group (MoPIRG) is a non-profit organization that is part of the state PIRG organizations.

Hazelwood School District et al. v. Kuhlmeier et al., 484 U.S. 260 (1988), was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that held that public school curricular student newspapers that have not been established as forums for student expression are subject to a lower level of First Amendment protection than independent student expression or newspapers established as forums for student expression.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Daniel Kelly (Wisconsin judge)</span> American judge, Justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court

Daniel Kelly is an American attorney and former judge who served as a Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice from August 1, 2016, through July 31, 2020.

Compelled speech is a transmission of expression required by law. A related legal concept is protected speech. Just as freedom of speech protects free expression, in many cases it similarly protects an individual from being required to utter or otherwise express a thought with which that individual disagrees.

Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, No. 16-1466, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), abbreviated Janus v. AFSCME, was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court on US labor law, concerning the power of labor unions to collect fees from non-union members. Under the Taft–Hartley Act of 1947, which applies to the private sector, union security agreements can be allowed by state law. The Supreme Court ruled that such union fees in the public sector violate the First Amendment right to free speech, overturning the 1977 decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education that had previously allowed such fees.

Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., 594 U.S. ___ (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case involving the ability of schools to regulate student speech made off-campus, including speech made on social media. The case challenged past interpretation of Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District and Bethel School District v. Fraser, previous Supreme Court decisions related to student speech which may be disruptive to the educational environment, in light of online communications.

References

  1. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System v. Southworth, 529 U.S. 217 (2000). PD-icon.svg This article incorporates public domain material from this U.S government document.
  2. Southworth v. Grebe, 151F.3d717 ( 7th Cir. 1998).
  3. 1 2 Southworth, 529 U.S. at 232.
  4. Southworth, 529 U.S. at 234-35.
  5. Southworth, 529 U.S. at 230.
  6. Southworth, 529 U.S. at 234.