515 U.S. 819 (1995), 94-329, Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va

Docket NºCase No. 94-329
Citation515 U.S. 819, 115 S.Ct. 2510, 132 L.Ed.2d 700, 63 U.S.L.W. 4702
Party NameROSENBERGER et al. v. RECTOR AND VISITORS OF UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA et al.
Case DateJune 29, 1995
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

Page 819

515 U.S. 819 (1995)

115 S.Ct. 2510, 132 L.Ed.2d 700, 63 U.S.L.W. 4702

ROSENBERGER et al.

v.

RECTOR AND VISITORS OF UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA et al.

Case No. 94-329

United States Supreme Court

June 29, 1995

Argued March 1, 1995

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Syllabus

Respondent University of Virginia, a state instrumentality, authorizes payments from its Student Activities Fund (SAF) to outside contractors for the printing costs of a variety of publications issued by student groups called "Contracted Independent Organizations" (CIO's). The SAF receives its money from mandatory student fees and is designed to support a broad range of extracurricular student activities related to the University's educational purpose. CIO's must include in their dealings with third parties and in all written materials a disclaimer stating that they are independent of the University and that the University is not responsible for them. The University withheld authorization for payments to a printer on behalf of petitioners' CIO, Wide Awake Productions (WAP), solely because its student newspaper, Wide Awake: A Christian Perspective at the University of Virginia, "primarily promotes or manifests a particular belie[f] in or about a deity or an ultimate reality," as prohibited by the University's SAF Guidelines. Petitioners filed this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging, inter alia, that the refusal to authorize payment violated their First Amendment right to freedom of speech. After the District Court granted summary judgment for the University, the Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding that the University's invocation of viewpoint discrimination to deny third-party payment violated the Speech Clause, but concluding that the discrimination was justified by the necessity of complying with the Establishment Clause.

Held:

1. The Guideline invoked to deny SAF support, both in its terms and in its application to these petitioners, is a denial of their right of free speech. Pp. 828-837.

(a) The Guideline violates the principles governing speech in limited public forums, which apply to the SAF under, e. g., Perry Ed. Assn. v. Perry Local Educators' Assn., 460 U.S. 37, 46-47. In determining whether a State is acting within its power to preserve the limits it has set for such a forum so that the exclusion of a class of speech there is legitimate, see, e. g., id., at 49, this Court has observed a distinction between, on the one hand, content discrimination— i. e., discrimination

Page 820

against speech because of its subject matter—which may be permissible if it preserves the limited forum's purposes, and, on the other hand, viewpoint discrimination— i.e., discrimination because of the speaker's specific motivating ideology, opinion, or perspective—which is presumed impermissible when directed against speech otherwise within the forum's limitations, see id., at 46. The most recent and most apposite case in this area is Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School Dist.,508 U.S. 384, 393, in which the Court held that permitting school property to be used for the presentation of all views on an issue except those dealing with it from a religious standpoint constitutes prohibited viewpoint discrimination. Here, as in that case, the State's actions are properly interpreted as unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination rather than permissible line-drawing based on content: By the very terms of the SAF prohibition, the University does not exclude religion as a subject matter, but selects for disfavored treatment those student journalistic efforts with religious editorial viewpoints. Pp. 828-832.

(b) The University's attempt to escape the consequences of Lamb's Chapel by urging that this case involves the provision of funds rather than access to facilities is unavailing. Although it may regulate the content of expression when it is the speaker or when it enlists private entities to convey its own message, Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173; Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263, 276, the University may not discriminate based on the viewpoint of private persons whose speech it subsidizes, Regan v. Taxation with Representation of Wash.,461 U.S. 540,548. Its argument that the scarcity of public money may justify otherwise impermissible viewpoint discrimination among private speakers is simply wrong. Pp. 832-835.

(c) Vital First Amendment speech principles are at stake here. The Guideline at issue has a vast potential reach: The term "promotes" as used there would comprehend any writing advocating a philosophic position that rests upon a belief (or nonbelief) in a deity or ultimate reality, while the term "manifests" would bring within the prohibition any writing resting upon a premise presupposing the existence (or nonexistence) of a deity or ultimate reality. It is difficult to name renowned thinkers whose writings would be accepted, save perhaps for articles disclaiming all connection to their ultimate philosophy. Pp. 835-837.

2. The violation following from the University's denial of SAF support to petitioners is not excused by the necessity of complying with the Establishment Clause. Pp. 837-846.

(a) The governmental program at issue is neutral toward religion. Such neutrality is a significant factor in upholding programs in the face of Establishment Clause attack, and the guarantee of neutrality is not

Page 821

offended where, as here, the government follows neutral criteria and evenhanded policies to extend benefits to recipients whose ideologies and viewpoints, including religious ones, are broad and diverse, Board of Ed. of Kiryas Joel Village School Dist. v. Grumet, 512 U.S. 687,704. There is no suggestion that the University created its program to advance religion or aid a religious cause. The SAF's purpose is to open a forum for speech and to support various student enterprises, including the publication of newspapers, in recognition of the diversity and creativity of student life. The SAF Guidelines have a separate classification for, and do not make third-party payments on behalf of, "religious organizations," and WAP did not seek a subsidy because of its Christian editorial viewpoint; it sought funding under the Guidelines as a "student. . . communications . . . grou[p]." Neutrality is also apparent in the fact that the University has taken pains to disassociate itself from the private speech involved in this case. The program's neutrality distinguishes the student fees here from a tax levied for the direct support of a church or group of churches, which would violate the Establishment Clause. Pp. 837-842.

(b) This case is not controlled by the principle that special Establishment Clause dangers exist where the government makes direct money payments to sectarian institutions, see, e. g., Roemer v. Board of Public Works of Md., 426 U.S. 736, 747, since it is undisputed that no public funds flow directly into WAP's coffers under the program at issue. A public university does not violate the Establishment Clause when it grants access to its facilities on a religion-neutral basis to a wide spectrum of student groups, even if some of those groups would use the facilities for devotional exercises. See e. g., Widmar, 454 U.S., at 269. This is so even where the upkeep, maintenance, and repair of those facilities are paid out of a student activities fund to which students are required to contribute. Id., at 265. There is no difference in logic or principle, and certainly no difference of constitutional significance, between using such funds to operate a facility to which students have access, and paying a third-party contractor to operate the facility on its behalf. That is all that is involved here: The University provides printing services to a broad spectrum of student newspapers. Were the contrary view to become law, the University could only avoid a constitutional violation by scrutinizing the content of student speech, lest it contain too great a religious message. Such censorship would be far more inconsistent with the Establishment Clause's dictates than would governmental provision of secular printing services on a religion-blind basis. Pp. 842-846.

18 F.3d 269, reversed.

Page 822

Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and O'Connor, Scalia, and Thomas, JJ., joined. O'Connor, J., post, p. 846, and Thomas, J., post, p. 852, filed concurring opinions. Souter, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Stevens, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined, post, p. 863.

Michael W. McConnell argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs was Michael P. McDonald.

John C. Jeffries, Jr., argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief was James J. Mingle.[*]

Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court.

The University of Virginia, an instrumentality of the Commonwealth for which it is named and thus bound by the First and Fourteenth Amendments, authorizes the payment of outside contractors for the printing costs of a variety of student publications. It withheld any authorization for payments on behalf of petitioners for the sole reason that their student

Page 823

paper "primarily promotes or manifests a particular belie[f] in or about a deity or an ultimate reality." That the paper did promote or manifest views within the defined exclusion seems plain enough. The challenge is to the University's regulation and its denial of authorization, the case raising issues under the Speech and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment.

I

The public corporation we refer to as the "University" is denominated by state law as "the Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia," Va. Code Ann. § 23-69 (1993), and it is responsible for governing the school, see §§ 23-69 to 23-80. Founded by Thomas Jefferson in 1819, and ranked by him, together with the authorship of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1441 practice notes
  • Federal Law Protections for Religious Liberty
    • United States
    • Federal Register October 26, 2017
    • October 26, 2017
    ...discrimination against religious clubs seeking use of public meeting spaces); Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 837, 841 (1995) (recognizing that Establishment Clause does not justify discrimination against religious student newspaper's participation in neu......
  • Equal Participation of Faith-Based Organizations in the Federal Agencies' Programs and Activities
    • United States
    • Agency For International Development,Education Department,Justice Department,Labor Department
    • Invalid date
    ...peculiar burdens'' and ``by granting to others peculiar exemptions''). \7\ See, e.g., Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 854 (1995) (Thomas, J., concurring) (``Madison's objection to the assessment bill did not rest on the premise that religious entities may n......
  • Clarification of When Products Made or Derived From Tobacco Are Regulated as Drugs, Devices, or Combination Products; Amendments to Regulations Regarding “Intended Uses”
    • United States
    • Federal Register January 09, 2017
    • January 9, 2017
    ...552, 565, 571 (2011), Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 135 S. Ct. 2218, 2226 (2015), and Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of the Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 828 (1995). Another comment, quoting Bolger v. Youngs Drug Prods., 463 U.S. 60, 66 (1983), asserted that FDA should recognize that commerc......
  • 873 F.Supp.2d 879 (E.D.Mich. 2012), 12-CV-11504, Bailey v. Callaghan
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 6th Circuit United States District Court (Eastern District of Michigan)
    • June 11, 2012
    ...opinion or perspective of the speaker is the rationale for the restriction." Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819, 829, 115 S.Ct. 2510, 132 L.Ed.2d 700 In Ysursa v. Pocatello Education Association, 555 U.S. 353, 129 S.Ct. 1093, 172 L.Ed.2d 770 (2009), I......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1212 cases
  • 873 F.Supp.2d 879 (E.D.Mich. 2012), 12-CV-11504, Bailey v. Callaghan
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 6th Circuit United States District Court (Eastern District of Michigan)
    • June 11, 2012
    ...opinion or perspective of the speaker is the rationale for the restriction." Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819, 829, 115 S.Ct. 2510, 132 L.Ed.2d 700 In Ysursa v. Pocatello Education Association, 555 U.S. 353, 129 S.Ct. 1093, 172 L.Ed.2d 770 (2009), I......
  • Carver Middle School Gay-Straight Alliance v. School Board of Lake County, 081915 FLMDC, 5:13-cv-623-Oc-10PRL
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 11th Circuit United States District Court of Middle District of Florida
    • August 19, 2015
    ...and the government is free to make subject-matter-based choices. See Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of the Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 833, 115 S.Ct. 2510, 132 L.Ed.2d 700 (1995). Finally, between the spectrum of pure student expression and government expression is the intermediate ca......
  • Viewpoint Neutrality Now! v. Regents of The University of Minnesota, 020221 MNDC, 20-CV-1055 (PJS/TNL)
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 8th Circuit United States District Court of Minnesota
    • February 2, 2021
    ...Amendment scrutiny and allows the government “to say what it wishes, ” Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 833 Second, Southworth found that the fund created by the collection of the student- services fee at UW was a limited public fo......
  • 366 P.3d 665 (Kan.App. 2016), 113,239, Roeder v. Kansas Dep't of Corr.
    • United States
    • Kansas Court of Appeals of Kansas
    • February 12, 2016
    ...Discrimination against speech based on its message is presumptively unconstitutional. Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 828, 115 S.Ct. 2510, 132 L.Ed.2d 700 (1995). The burden rests on the government to justify restrictions placed on private speech. United St......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 firm's commentaries
  • Free Speech Triumphs in Transit Advertisements
    • United States
    • JD Supra United States
    • January 6, 2020
    ...viewpoint discrimination of speech in the public education or school setting. e.g. Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819 (1995); Child Evangelism Fellowship of New Jersey Inc., v. Stafford Township School District, 386 F.3d 514 (3d Cir. 2004). Public administrat......
  • Physicians’ Right to Recommend Medical Marijuana: Conant v. Walters
    • United States
    • LexBlog United States
    • March 4, 2016
    ...but particular views taken by speakers on a subject, the violation of the First Amendment is all the more blatant.” Rosenberger v. Rector, 515 U.S. 819, 829 (1995). When drawing the line between physicians’ first amendment rights versus the federal government’s ability to enforce federal dr......
  • Whose Right is it Anyway? Unconstitutional Speaker Discrimination in Texas’ Anti-SLAPP Scheme
    • United States
    • LexBlog United States
    • March 19, 2017
    ...not regulate speech based on its substantive content or the message it conveys.” Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of the Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 829 (1995). Following this precept, government “may not favor one speaker over another.” Id. Government action that discriminates against ......
  • Florida Real Property & Business Litigation Report, Volume 13, Issue 28
    • United States
    • JD Supra United States
    • July 14, 2020
    ...525 U. S. 182, 186– 187 (1999) (heightened protection for “core political speech”); Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U. S. 819, 829–830 (1995) (government discriminationon basis of “particular views taken by speakers on a subject”presumptively unconstitutional); Boos ......
205 books & journal articles
  • An elastic amendment: Justice Stephen G. Breyer's fluid conceptions of freedom of speech.
    • United States
    • Albany Law Review Vol. 79 Nbr. 2, December 2015
    • December 22, 2015
    ...(578) See id. at 2234, 2235-36. (579) Id. at 2234. (580) Id. at 2234 (first citing Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 828, 829 (1995); and then citing Boos v. Barry, 485 U.S. 312, 318, 319 (1988) (plurality opinion)). (581) See Reed, 135 S. Ct. at 2236 (Brey......
  • The First Amendment
    • United States
    • Civil Rights Litigation: Representing Plaintiffs Today Part One
    • July 10, 2013
    ...vein, not only do speakers have the right to express 117. Id. 118. Id. 119. Id. 120. Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 829 (1995). 121. Id. 122. Perry Educ. Ass’n v. Perry Local Educators’ Ass’n, 460 U.S. 37, 62 (1983) (Bren‑ nan, J., 123. Snyder, 131 S. Ct......
  • Discriminatory discretion: PTO procedures and viewpoint discrimination under section 2(a) of the Lanham Act.
    • United States
    • University of Pennsylvania Law Review Vol. 164 Nbr. 2, January - January 2016
    • January 1, 2016
    ...opinion that gives offense, that consequence is a reason for according it constitutional protection." (citations omitted)). (115) 515 U.S. 819, 829 (1995) (citing R. A. V., 505 U.S. at 391). (116) See Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622, 641 (1994) ("Government action th......
  • Is there a place for religious charter schools?
    • United States
    • Yale Law Journal Vol. 118 Nbr. 3, December 2008
    • December 1, 2008
    ...fund a religious student periodical in the same manner as a secular periodical, see Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819 (1995); whether a school may remove an "objectionable" book from the school library, see Bd. of Educ. v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853, 856 (......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 provisions