Romsted ex rel. Persons v. Rutgers

• Decision Date: 08 May 2014
• Docket Number: No. 13-3640,13-3640
• Parties: LARRY ROMSTED, On Behalf of Themselves and All Similarly Situated Persons; MANIJEH SABA, On Behalf of Themselves and All Other Similarly Situated, Appellants v. RUTGERS, The State University of New Jersey; ROBERT L. BARCHI, President of Rutgers, In his Official and Individual Capacities; RICHARD L. MCCORMICK, President Emeritus of Rutgers, in his Official and Individual Capacities; BOARD OF TRUSTEES, AND BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF RUTGERS, THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW JERSEY
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

LARRY ROMSTED, On Behalf of Themselves
and All Similarly Situated Persons; MANIJEH SABA,
On Behalf of Themselves and All Other Similarly Situated, Appellants
v.
RUTGERS, The State University of New Jersey;
ROBERT L. BARCHI, President of Rutgers, In his Official
and Individual Capacities; RICHARD L. MCCORMICK, President
Emeritus of Rutgers, in his Official and Individual Capacities;
BOARD OF TRUSTEES, AND BOARD OF GOVERNORS
OF RUTGERS, THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW JERSEY

No. 13-3640

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

Filed: May 8, 2014

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. Civ. No. 12-cv-05588) Hon. Michael A. Shipp, District Judge
Submitted under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) March 25, 2014
BEFORE: FUENTES, GREENBERG, and VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges
OPINION OF THE COURT

Page 2

GREENBERG, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiffs-appellants, Larry Romsted and Manijeh Saba, have moved to dismiss the appeal in this case. Defendants-appellees, Rutgers University and certain individuals oppose the motion as they are seeking an order affirming the District Court's order dismissing appellants' complaint. Appellees correctly note that appellants filed their motion to dismiss the appeal virtually on the eve of the oral argument. Despite appellees' expenditure of resources necessitated to answer appellants' appeal, we will grant the motion to dismiss the appeal.

We recount appellants' factual allegations even though they are only tangentially relevant to our disposition of this appeal. On November 4, 2010, a Rutgers student group, Belief Awareness Knowledge Activism: Students United for Middle Eastern Justice ("BAKA"),¹ held an on-campus fundraiser to criticize an Israeli naval blockade of Gaza. The event sponsors focused their attention on a vessel called the U.S. Boat to Gaza, part of a flotilla of ships organized to bring humanitarian aid to Palestinians. Appellants, Romsted, a Rutgers professor, and Saba, an activist, had worked with BAKA to organize the fundraising event and helped in obtaining speakers and publicity for the event. Appellants further assisted the event's sponsors by making financial contributions to the event. The fundraiser seems to have been of modest size as the record indicates that BAKA raised approximately $3,400 from the event.

Page 3

Though the event did not raise a great amount of money, Rutgers was concerned about the disposition of the funds it raised because of Rutgers' policy requiring that beneficiaries of student fundraisers be tax exempt and that the funds raised be used only for lawful purposes. BAKA's initial choice for the recipient did not satisfy either requirement according to Rutgers. Consequently, BAKA distributed a notice to all persons attending the event explaining that Rutgers would hold the money raised until "the legal issues and status surrounding the beneficiary are resolved." J.A. 55. The notice also provided that if an attendee disapproved of an alternative recipient for the funds the event raised, the attendee could obtain a refund of his contribution. See J.A. 51-52 (letter from Rutgers President Richard McCormick, attached as an exhibit to the complaint). Following the event and additional correspondence between BAKA and university officials, BAKA chose a different organization to receive the funds, but the problem regarding designation of an appropriate beneficiary was not resolved as Rutgers rejected this recipient as well. J.A. 26-27

Appellants have brought this action claiming that Rutgers was using its "lawful purpose" policy as a pretext to restrict speech with which it disagrees—namely, speech that criticizes Israel and the Israeli blockade. Appellants contended that by enforcing its policy Rutgers engaged in viewpoint discrimination in violation of the...