Petitioner
Ronald W. Rosenberger, Wide Awake Productions, and others
Respondent
Rectors and Visitors of the University of Virginia and others
Petitioner's Claim
That denying commonly available school funds to a student religious organization by a public university violated the First Amendment's Speech Clause.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
Michael W. McConnell
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
John C. Jefferies, Jr.
Justices for the Court
Anthony M. Kennedy (writing for the Court), Sandra Day O'Connor, William H. Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas
Justices Dissenting
Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David H. Souter, John Paul Stevens
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
29 June 1995
Decision
The Court ruled in favor of Rosenberger by finding that the University of Virginia violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment and must providefinancial support to a student religious publication as it does to other student publications.
Significance
The Court found the university's actions were essentially suppressing studentspeech in violation of the First Amendment's Speech Clause. The ruling, following on an earlier Court decision supporting the use of public school facilities for religious purposes, significantly expanded public support for religious activities. Critics of the decision lamented that the Court again avoidedthe Establishment Clause issue by relying on Speech Clause considerations asin other recent cases.
Two First Amendment clauses apply to religious practice. The Establishment Clause prohibits government from establishing or promoting religious beliefs. The Free Exercise Clause prohibits governments from restricting individuals from practicing religion. The two often clash in that protecting religious practice from disruption could be construed as promotion when carried too far. Government must maintain neutrality in dealing with religious matters, and is prohibited from passing laws, which aid or inhibit religion, or prefer one religion to another. Similarly, the Speech Clause of the First Amendment allowsindividuals to express personal beliefs without well-founded government restriction. What some may see as protection of expressing religious viewpoints, others may see as promotion of those viewpoints, depending on the nature of the particular circumstance.
The Supreme Court consistently upheld students' rights to express themselveson university and college campuses. The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution extended these protections to state governments and state funded universities. In Westside Community Board of Education v. Mergens (1990), theCourt held that Bible clubs and prayer groups could meet on public secondaryschool campuses. The case provided a broadened interpretation of the Equal Access Act of 1984 in which Congress prohibited discrimination against studentsbecause of their religious beliefs.
Jefferson's University
Founded by Thomas Jefferson in 1819, the University of Virginia is one of theoldest and most highly respected institutions of higher education in the nation. Over 17,000 undergraduate and graduate students annually enroll at the school. As part of the Commonwealth of Virginia, the university is subject tothe First and Fourteenth amendments.
The University routinely provided monetary support from its Student Activities Fund to commercial costs for printing a variety of publications produced bystudent organizations. The Student Activities Fund, itself funded from mandatory student fees, was designed to support a broad range of extracurricular student activities related to the university's educational purpose. The student organizations had to include in their contracts and in all written materials a disclaimer stating that they were independent of the university and thatthe university was not responsible for the content.
A University of Virginia student, Ronald W. Rosenberger, applied for $5,800 from the Student Activities Fund to help subsidize the publishing expenses ofa Christian magazine, Wide Awake, initiated in 1990. Based on the religious nature of the publication, the university refused Rosenberger's request. Because of Establishment Clause concerns, the university had adopted funding guidelines prohibiting financial support for publications promoting a particular belief about a supreme being or "ultimate reality."
The existing university structure provided no recourse to the denied studentsfor contesting the University policy. With few other options available, WideAwake Productions and three of its editors and members including Rosenbergerfiled suit in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia. Rosenberger claimed the Student Activities Fund's policy to selectively refuse payments for printing costs solely on the basis of religious viewpoints violated constitutional rights to freedom of speech and press. Rosenberger also alleged his rights to the free exercise of religion and to equal protection underthe law were violated as well.
The suit sought monies for the magazine's printing costs, an injunction against further enforcement of the school policy, and reimbursement of attorney'sfees. Upon request for a summary judgment, the district court ruled in favorof the university. The district court ruled that the university's Establishment Clause concern over supporting "religious activities" was sufficient justification for denying payment and that Wide Awake Production's speech rights were not violated.
Rosenberger appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the FourthCircuit. The appeals court disagreed with the district court opinion concerning Speech Clause violations. The court held that the fund guidelines did discriminate on the basis of speech content. The appeals court ruled that, whilethe state need not support the speech, a violation of the Speech Clause resulted when the university selectively denied payments, normally available to student organizations. Nevertheless, the appeals court affirmed the district court judgment when considering the religion issues. The court concluded suchdiscrimination by the university was justified by the "compelling interest inmaintaining strict separation of church and state." Rosenberger next appealed to the Supreme Court. The Court issued a writ of certiorari, a written order commanding the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to forward the proceedings of a case for review.
An Issue of Speech
By a narrow majority of 5-4, the Court reversed the two lower court decisions. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority, wrote that the University had violated the Constitution through "viewpoint discrimination" and that funding the paper would not violate the Establishment Clause.
Kennedy relied heavily on the Court's earlier decision in Lamb's Chapel v.Center Moriches Union Free School District (1993) in deciding the case.In Lamb's Chapel, a public school denied a religious organization permission to show a religious film in a public school building even when the property was not in use for school purposes. The school district had an existingpolicy of allowing certain uses during "off hours," but specifically excluded building use for religious activities. The Court found that by favoring non-religious over religious viewpoints the school policy violated the Free Speech Clause. The Court went on to find that the showing of a religious film onschool property did not violate the Establishment Clause because the film wasnot shown during school hours, did not receive school sponsorship, and was open to the public. The school board policy for making the facilities available to groups after normal school hours had in essence created an "open forum"for expression of all viewpoints.
Kennedy asserted that under the First and Fourteenth amendments the government could not restrict speech based on the content of its message. Kennedy wrote,
Kennedy, noting that fundamental First Amendment speech principles were at stake, identified two dangers present in this case. The first was granting a state entity the power to examine publications to determine if they were basedon some "ultimate" idea. The second danger was the chilling of individual thought and expression. Kennedy wrote, "That danger is especially real in the University setting, where the State acts against a background and tradition ofthought and experiment that is at the center of our intellectual and philosophic tradition."
The Uniqueness of Religion Cases
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, in writing a concurring opinion, sought to limitthe utility of the decision as a precedent for other forms of direct publicfinancial aid to religious activities. She emphasized that in this case the student publications were actually independent of the university and includeddisclaimers in every issue to that effect. In addition, the Student ActivityFund payments were sent directly to the printer, not to the students themselves. She also underscored that Wide Awake was only one among a large number of school funded student publications. Lastly, O'Connor asserted the funds were not normal government revenue but derived from student payments, thedistribution was administered by students, and the funds were available onlyto students who paid their fees.
Justice David H. Souter was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth BaderGinsburg, and Steven Breyer, in dissent. Souter wrote, "The Court today, forthe first time, approves direct funding of core religious activities by an arm of the State." Souter contended that the university's use of mandatory student fees to pay printing costs for a religious publication constituted a direct subsidy forbidden under the Establishment Clause. Souter asserted the indirect funding cases heard by the majority as precedence were fundamentally different.
Souter concluded,
Impact
Rosenberger was the fourth in a series of Supreme Court cases since 1981 in the post-Warren Court era that ruled public institutions could offer support to religious organizations or activities when the benefits were provided neutrally to all groups, religious and secular. A state law or policy providing funding support to individuals or organizations without regard to religion was no longer considered in violation of the Establishment Clause. However, O'Connor's concurring opinion in Rosenberger made it very clear thatprecedents in Establishment Clause cases have narrow implications. Each case, O'Connor wrote, must be examined in regard to its specific nature to determine their relation to constitutional protections.
Critics decried use of public money to support a Christian magazine. They noted the Court had ruled that the university founded by Thomas Jefferson, chiefarchitect of the Establishment Clause, must spend public money to support religious comment. On the other hand, the decision was viewed as a victory by the Religious Right. As fallout from the decision, government institutions seeking to avoid the subsidy of religious activity were left with the option ofnot supporting any type of public forum. The series of decisions supporting use of public funds for religious activities further fueled the efforts by some to use public tax monies to support private religious schools through tuition vouchers given directly to families.
Related Cases
Ronald W. Rosenberger, Wide Awake Productions, and others
Respondent
Rectors and Visitors of the University of Virginia and others
Petitioner's Claim
That denying commonly available school funds to a student religious organization by a public university violated the First Amendment's Speech Clause.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
Michael W. McConnell
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
John C. Jefferies, Jr.
Justices for the Court
Anthony M. Kennedy (writing for the Court), Sandra Day O'Connor, William H. Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas
Justices Dissenting
Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David H. Souter, John Paul Stevens
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
29 June 1995
Decision
The Court ruled in favor of Rosenberger by finding that the University of Virginia violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment and must providefinancial support to a student religious publication as it does to other student publications.
Significance
The Court found the university's actions were essentially suppressing studentspeech in violation of the First Amendment's Speech Clause. The ruling, following on an earlier Court decision supporting the use of public school facilities for religious purposes, significantly expanded public support for religious activities. Critics of the decision lamented that the Court again avoidedthe Establishment Clause issue by relying on Speech Clause considerations asin other recent cases.
Two First Amendment clauses apply to religious practice. The Establishment Clause prohibits government from establishing or promoting religious beliefs. The Free Exercise Clause prohibits governments from restricting individuals from practicing religion. The two often clash in that protecting religious practice from disruption could be construed as promotion when carried too far. Government must maintain neutrality in dealing with religious matters, and is prohibited from passing laws, which aid or inhibit religion, or prefer one religion to another. Similarly, the Speech Clause of the First Amendment allowsindividuals to express personal beliefs without well-founded government restriction. What some may see as protection of expressing religious viewpoints, others may see as promotion of those viewpoints, depending on the nature of the particular circumstance.
The Supreme Court consistently upheld students' rights to express themselveson university and college campuses. The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution extended these protections to state governments and state funded universities. In Westside Community Board of Education v. Mergens (1990), theCourt held that Bible clubs and prayer groups could meet on public secondaryschool campuses. The case provided a broadened interpretation of the Equal Access Act of 1984 in which Congress prohibited discrimination against studentsbecause of their religious beliefs.
Jefferson's University
Founded by Thomas Jefferson in 1819, the University of Virginia is one of theoldest and most highly respected institutions of higher education in the nation. Over 17,000 undergraduate and graduate students annually enroll at the school. As part of the Commonwealth of Virginia, the university is subject tothe First and Fourteenth amendments.
The University routinely provided monetary support from its Student Activities Fund to commercial costs for printing a variety of publications produced bystudent organizations. The Student Activities Fund, itself funded from mandatory student fees, was designed to support a broad range of extracurricular student activities related to the university's educational purpose. The student organizations had to include in their contracts and in all written materials a disclaimer stating that they were independent of the university and thatthe university was not responsible for the content.
A University of Virginia student, Ronald W. Rosenberger, applied for $5,800 from the Student Activities Fund to help subsidize the publishing expenses ofa Christian magazine, Wide Awake, initiated in 1990. Based on the religious nature of the publication, the university refused Rosenberger's request. Because of Establishment Clause concerns, the university had adopted funding guidelines prohibiting financial support for publications promoting a particular belief about a supreme being or "ultimate reality."
The existing university structure provided no recourse to the denied studentsfor contesting the University policy. With few other options available, WideAwake Productions and three of its editors and members including Rosenbergerfiled suit in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia. Rosenberger claimed the Student Activities Fund's policy to selectively refuse payments for printing costs solely on the basis of religious viewpoints violated constitutional rights to freedom of speech and press. Rosenberger also alleged his rights to the free exercise of religion and to equal protection underthe law were violated as well.
The suit sought monies for the magazine's printing costs, an injunction against further enforcement of the school policy, and reimbursement of attorney'sfees. Upon request for a summary judgment, the district court ruled in favorof the university. The district court ruled that the university's Establishment Clause concern over supporting "religious activities" was sufficient justification for denying payment and that Wide Awake Production's speech rights were not violated.
Rosenberger appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the FourthCircuit. The appeals court disagreed with the district court opinion concerning Speech Clause violations. The court held that the fund guidelines did discriminate on the basis of speech content. The appeals court ruled that, whilethe state need not support the speech, a violation of the Speech Clause resulted when the university selectively denied payments, normally available to student organizations. Nevertheless, the appeals court affirmed the district court judgment when considering the religion issues. The court concluded suchdiscrimination by the university was justified by the "compelling interest inmaintaining strict separation of church and state." Rosenberger next appealed to the Supreme Court. The Court issued a writ of certiorari, a written order commanding the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to forward the proceedings of a case for review.
An Issue of Speech
By a narrow majority of 5-4, the Court reversed the two lower court decisions. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority, wrote that the University had violated the Constitution through "viewpoint discrimination" and that funding the paper would not violate the Establishment Clause.
Kennedy relied heavily on the Court's earlier decision in Lamb's Chapel v.Center Moriches Union Free School District (1993) in deciding the case.In Lamb's Chapel, a public school denied a religious organization permission to show a religious film in a public school building even when the property was not in use for school purposes. The school district had an existingpolicy of allowing certain uses during "off hours," but specifically excluded building use for religious activities. The Court found that by favoring non-religious over religious viewpoints the school policy violated the Free Speech Clause. The Court went on to find that the showing of a religious film onschool property did not violate the Establishment Clause because the film wasnot shown during school hours, did not receive school sponsorship, and was open to the public. The school board policy for making the facilities available to groups after normal school hours had in essence created an "open forum"for expression of all viewpoints.
Kennedy asserted that under the First and Fourteenth amendments the government could not restrict speech based on the content of its message. Kennedy wrote,
In the realm of private speech or expression, government regulation may not favor one speaker over another. Discrimination against speech because of its message is presumed to be unconstitutional. These rules informedour determination that the government offends the First Amendment when it imposes financial burdens on certain speakers based on the content of their expression. When the government targets not subject matter but particular viewstaken by speakers on a subject, the violation of the First Amendment is all the more blatant.Kennedy pointed out that such viewpoint discrimination was a form of content discrimination. He concluded that the governmentmust refrain from restricting speech when the specific ideology or opinion of the speaker was the basis for the policy.
Kennedy, noting that fundamental First Amendment speech principles were at stake, identified two dangers present in this case. The first was granting a state entity the power to examine publications to determine if they were basedon some "ultimate" idea. The second danger was the chilling of individual thought and expression. Kennedy wrote, "That danger is especially real in the University setting, where the State acts against a background and tradition ofthought and experiment that is at the center of our intellectual and philosophic tradition."
The Uniqueness of Religion Cases
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, in writing a concurring opinion, sought to limitthe utility of the decision as a precedent for other forms of direct publicfinancial aid to religious activities. She emphasized that in this case the student publications were actually independent of the university and includeddisclaimers in every issue to that effect. In addition, the Student ActivityFund payments were sent directly to the printer, not to the students themselves. She also underscored that Wide Awake was only one among a large number of school funded student publications. Lastly, O'Connor asserted the funds were not normal government revenue but derived from student payments, thedistribution was administered by students, and the funds were available onlyto students who paid their fees.
Justice David H. Souter was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth BaderGinsburg, and Steven Breyer, in dissent. Souter wrote, "The Court today, forthe first time, approves direct funding of core religious activities by an arm of the State." Souter contended that the university's use of mandatory student fees to pay printing costs for a religious publication constituted a direct subsidy forbidden under the Establishment Clause. Souter asserted the indirect funding cases heard by the majority as precedence were fundamentally different.
Souter concluded,
Thus the Court's reasoning requires a university that funds private publications about any primarily non-religious topic also to fund publications primarily espousing adherence to or rejection of religion . . . . The Court's contrary holding amounts to a significant reformulation of our viewpoint discrimination precedents and will significantly expand access to limited-access forums.
Impact
Rosenberger was the fourth in a series of Supreme Court cases since 1981 in the post-Warren Court era that ruled public institutions could offer support to religious organizations or activities when the benefits were provided neutrally to all groups, religious and secular. A state law or policy providing funding support to individuals or organizations without regard to religion was no longer considered in violation of the Establishment Clause. However, O'Connor's concurring opinion in Rosenberger made it very clear thatprecedents in Establishment Clause cases have narrow implications. Each case, O'Connor wrote, must be examined in regard to its specific nature to determine their relation to constitutional protections.
Critics decried use of public money to support a Christian magazine. They noted the Court had ruled that the university founded by Thomas Jefferson, chiefarchitect of the Establishment Clause, must spend public money to support religious comment. On the other hand, the decision was viewed as a victory by the Religious Right. As fallout from the decision, government institutions seeking to avoid the subsidy of religious activity were left with the option ofnot supporting any type of public forum. The series of decisions supporting use of public funds for religious activities further fueled the efforts by some to use public tax monies to support private religious schools through tuition vouchers given directly to families.
Related Cases
- Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263 (1981).
- Westside Community Board of Education v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 226 (1990).
- Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches School District, 508 U.S. 385 (1993).
User Comments Add a comment…