Gay Lib v. University of Missouri

Last updated
Gay Lib v. University of Missouri
US-CourtOfAppeals-8thCircuit-Seal.png
Court United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Full case nameGay Lib, et al v. University of Missouri, et al
ArguedFebruary 17, 1977
DecidedJune 8, 1977
Citation(s) 558 F.2d 848 (8th Cir. 1977)
Case history
Subsequent historyRehearing en banc denied
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Donald P. Lay, William H. Webster, John K. Regan (E.D. Mo.)
Case opinions
MajorityLay, joined by Webster
ConcurrenceWebster
DissentRegan
Dissent Floyd Robert Gibson (dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc), joined by Jesse Smith Henley
Dissent Roy Laverne Stephenson (dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc)
Laws applied
First Amendment

Gay Lib v. University of Missouri, 558 F. 2d 848 (8th Cir. 1977) was a court case in 1977 about discrimination in student group recognition at state universities, namely the University of Missouri. The case reached the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The courts determined that "the University, acting here as an instrumentality of the State, has no right to restrict speech or association 'simply because it finds the views expressed to be abhorrent'." [1]

Related Research Articles

Student rights are those rights, such as civil, constitutional, contractual and consumer rights, which regulate student rights and freedoms and allow students to make use of their educational investment. These include such things as the right to free speech and association, to due process, equality, autonomy, safety and privacy, and accountability in contracts and advertising, which regulate the treatment of students by teachers and administrators. There is very little scholarship about student rights throughout the world. In general most countries have some kind of student rights enshrined in their laws and proceduralized by their court precedents. Some countries, like Romania, in the European Union, have comprehensive student bills of rights, which outline both rights and how they are to be proceduralized. Most countries, however, like the United States and Canada, do not have a cohesive bill of rights and students must use the courts to determine how rights precedents in one area apply in their own jurisdictions.

Nonintercourse Act Family of U.S. laws related to Native American tribal rights

The Nonintercourse Act is the collective name given to six statutes passed by the Congress in 1790, 1793, 1796, 1799, 1802, and 1834 to set Amerindian boundaries of reservations. The various Acts were also intended to regulate commerce between settlers and the natives. The most notable provisions of the Act regulate the inalienability of aboriginal title in the United States, a continuing source of litigation for almost 200 years. The prohibition on purchases of Indian lands without the approval of the federal government has its origins in the Royal Proclamation of 1763 and the Confederation Congress Proclamation of 1783.

Samuel Alito US Supreme Court justice since 2006

Samuel Anthony Alito Jr. is an American lawyer and jurist who serves as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. He was nominated by President George W. Bush on October 31, 2005, and has served since January 31, 2006. He is the second Italian-American justice to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court, after Antonin Scalia, and the eleventh Roman Catholic.

David B. Sentelle American judge

David Bryan Sentelle is a Senior United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Diane Wood United States federal judge

Diane Pamela Wood is an American attorney and jurist who serves as a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, and a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School.

Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, which unanimously held that a right to assisted suicide in the United States was not protected by the Due Process Clause.

Milan Smith American judge

Milan Dale Smith Jr. is an American attorney and jurist serving as a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Smith's brother, Gordon H. Smith, was a Republican U.S. Senator from 1997 to 2009.

<i>Holmes v. California National Guard</i>

Andrew Holmes v. California National Guard, 124 F.3d 1126 was a federal court case heard by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, that upheld the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that restricted service by gays and lesbians in the California National Guard of the United States. The court decided that a member of the National Guard could not be discharged for saying publicly that he or she is homosexual or bisexual, but could be restricted to assignments that did not require recognition by the federal government.

Sexual orientation discrimination is discrimination based on sexual orientation and/or sexual behaviour.

<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.

Doe v. Reed, 561 U.S. 186 (2010), is a United States Supreme Court case which holds that the disclosure of signatures on a referendum does not violate the Petition Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

<i>Baker v. Wade</i> U.S. court case on sodomy

Baker v. Wade 563 F.Supp 1121, rev'd 769 F.2nd 289 cert denied 478 US 1022 (1986) is a federal lawsuit challenging the legality of the sodomy law of the state of Texas. Plaintiff Donald Baker contended that the law violated his rights to privacy and equal protection. After a victory at trial, an appellate court reversed the lower court's decision and in the wake of its decision in Bowers v. Hardwick the Supreme Court of the United States refused to review it.

Andrew D. Hurwitz American judge

Andrew David Hurwitz is a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning, 455 F.3d 859, was a federal lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska and decided on appeal by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. It challenged the federal constitutionality of Nebraska Initiative Measure 416, a 2000 ballot initiative that amended the Nebraska Constitution to prohibit the recognition of same-sex marriages, civil unions, and other same-sex relationships.

Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414 (1988), was an important decision by the United States Supreme Court on paid petition circulation. Colorado was one of several states with a process for citizens to propose initiatives for the ballot, which if passed became law. One of the requirements was to get the signatures of a significant number of registered Colorado electors. Colorado prohibited initiative sponsors from paying for the circulation of these petitions. The state argued this was necessary to "protect[...] the integrity of the initiative."

Waesche, Sheinbaum & O'Regan was a New York law firm focusing on international litigation and arbitration.

Lincoln University School of Law was a professional graduate school of Lincoln University, which operated in St. Louis, Missouri from September 20, 1939, until it closed in 1955. Although Lincoln University’s campus was located in Jefferson City, Missouri, the law school was established in St. Louis because university officials believed that student enrollment would be better in an urban-centered program and that the St. Louis location offered students opportunities to meet with practicing lawyers and that faculty from the two white university law schools in the St. Louis area might be available as part-time lecturers at the new law school.

Several statutes, mostly codified in Title 18 of the United States Code, provide for federal prosecution of public corruption in the United States. Federal prosecutions of public corruption under the Hobbs Act, the mail and wire fraud statutes, including the honest services fraud provision, the Travel Act, and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) began in the 1970s. "Although none of these statutes was enacted in order to prosecute official corruption, each has been interpreted to provide a means to do so." The federal official bribery and gratuity statute, 18 U.S.C. § 201, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) 15 U.S.C. § 78dd, and the federal program bribery statute, 18 U.S.C. § 666 directly address public corruption.

The Assimilative Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. § 13, makes state law applicable to conduct occurring on lands reserved or acquired by the Federal government as provided in 18 U.S.C. § 7(3), when the act or omission is not made punishable by an enactment of Congress.

Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263 (1981), held that when the U.S. government provides an "open forum," it may not discriminate against speech that takes place within that forum on the basis of the viewpoint it expresses—in this case, against religious speech engaged in by an evangelical Christian organization.

References

  1. Gay Lib v. University of Missouri, 558F.2d848 (8th Cir.1977).