Lexplug logoLexplug

Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund

Supreme Court of the United States
473 U.S. 788, 105 S.Ct. 3439, 87 L.Ed.2d 567 (1985)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The government does not violate the First Amendment when it excludes speakers from a nonpublic forum, so long as the restriction is reasonable in light of the forum's purpose and is not an effort to suppress a particular viewpoint.


Facts:

  • The Combined Federal Campaign (CFC) is an annual charity drive established by the federal government to allow its employees to donate to charitable organizations from the workplace.
  • The CFC was created to minimize workplace disruption from numerous uncoordinated solicitation requests that had become commonplace.
  • The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., along with several other legal defense and political advocacy groups (respondents), seek to influence public policy through litigation, lobbying, and advocacy.
  • Initially, the respondents were denied admission to the CFC under a rule requiring participants to provide 'direct health and welfare services.'
  • After a court found that rule unconstitutionally vague, the respondent organizations were permitted to participate in the CFC for two years.
  • In response, President Reagan issued Executive Order 12404, which explicitly limited CFC participation to agencies providing direct health and welfare services.
  • The Executive Order specifically excluded any agency that seeks to influence public policy through political activity, advocacy, lobbying, or litigation.
  • As a result of this new order, the respondent organizations were again threatened with exclusion from the CFC.

Procedural Posture:

  • The NAACP Legal Defense Fund and other advocacy groups sued the Director of the Office of Personnel Management in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia after being denied participation in the CFC.
  • In a prior action (NAACP I), the District Court found the 'direct services' requirement for participation to be unconstitutionally vague.
  • After President Reagan issued a new Executive Order explicitly excluding advocacy groups, the organizations filed the present lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
  • The District Court granted summary judgment for the organizations, holding that the CFC was a limited public forum and the exclusion was an unconstitutional content-based restriction.
  • The government appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
  • A divided panel of the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's judgment, finding the government's exclusion to be unreasonable regardless of the forum's classification.
  • The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a Presidential Executive Order that excludes legal defense and political advocacy organizations from participating in the Combined Federal Campaign, a charitable fundraising drive in the federal workplace, violate the First Amendment?


Opinions:

Majority - Justice O'Connor

No, the Executive Order does not violate the First Amendment. The Court established a three-part analysis. First, charitable solicitation is a form of protected speech. Second, the relevant forum is the CFC itself, which is a nonpublic forum, not a traditional or designated public forum. The government created the CFC to minimize disruption, not to provide an open platform for discourse, and has consistently limited access. Third, restrictions on speech in a nonpublic forum must only be reasonable and viewpoint-neutral. The government's justifications for the exclusion—to limit the campaign to traditional charities, to avoid workplace disruption from controversy, and to avoid the appearance of political favoritism—are reasonable. While the exclusion appears viewpoint-neutral because it applies to all advocacy groups, the case is remanded for the lower court to determine whether these justifications are merely a pretext for viewpoint discrimination.


Dissenting - Justice Blackmun

Yes, the Executive Order violates the First Amendment. The majority's reasoning is circular; it classifies the CFC as a nonpublic forum simply because the government intended to limit access, which effectively eliminates the concept of a 'limited public forum.' The CFC is a limited public forum because the government designated it as a channel for expressive activity by a certain class of speakers (charities). In a limited public forum, restrictions must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest, a standard the government's justifications fail to meet. Furthermore, the exclusion is blatantly viewpoint-based, as it permits charities that work within the existing social and political system while silencing those that seek to change the system through litigation and advocacy.


Dissenting - Justice Stevens

Yes, the Executive Order violates the First Amendment. The government's justifications for the exclusion are 'wholly without merit' and 'pure nonsense,' especially since respondents only seek designated contributions directly from employees who choose to support them. The supposed fear of controversy is not a valid reason to restrict speech. The weakness of the government's official reasons strongly supports the inference that the exclusion was motivated by bias against the respondents' viewpoints, and the Court of Appeals was correct to grant summary judgment in their favor without needing a trial on that issue.



Analysis:

This case solidifies the three-tiered forum analysis framework established in Perry Education Assn. v. Perry Local Educators' Assn. It grants the government significant authority to regulate speech on property it controls that is not a traditional or designated public forum. The highly deferential 'reasonableness' standard for nonpublic forums makes it difficult for speakers to challenge their exclusion, shifting the burden to them to prove that a seemingly neutral regulation is actually a pretext for viewpoint discrimination. The decision empowers the government, acting as an employer and proprietor, to control the scope of expressive activity within its internal operations to maintain order and efficiency.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund (1985)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"