Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of the University of Virginia

Supreme Court of the United States
515 U.S. 819, 115 S.Ct. 2510, 132 L.Ed.2d 700 (1995)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A state entity that creates a limited public forum for private speech, such as a student activities fund designed to support various student publications, may not deny funding to a speaker based on its religious viewpoint. Providing such funding on a neutral, evenhanded basis does not violate the Establishment Clause.

Facts:

The University of Virginia (UVA), a state instrumentality, collected a mandatory $14 semesterly fee from each full-time student to create a Student Activities Fund (SAF).
The SAF was used to pay the bills of third-party contractors for the printing costs of various student publications published by recognized student groups called Contracted Independent Organizations (CIOs).
UVA's guidelines for the SAF prohibited funding for any "religious activity," defined as an activity that "primarily promotes or manifests a particular belie[f] in or about a deity or an ultimate reality."
Ronald Rosenberger and other students formed Wide Awake Productions (WAP), a CIO, to publish a magazine of philosophical and religious expression from a Christian perspective.
WAP's magazine, 'Wide Awake: A Christian Perspective at the University of Virginia,' contained articles on topics like racism and eating disorders from an evangelical Christian viewpoint and included calls to accept Jesus Christ.
WAP submitted a request for the SAF to pay its printer $5,862 for printing costs.
The University denied WAP's funding request on the sole ground that the content of 'Wide Awake' constituted a "religious activity" under its guidelines.

Procedural Posture:

Ronald Rosenberger and Wide Awake Productions sued the University of Virginia in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia.
On cross-motions for summary judgment, the District Court ruled in favor of the University.
Rosenberger (appellant) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, with the University as appellee.
The Court of Appeals held that the University's policy was viewpoint discrimination but affirmed the judgment for the University, finding the discrimination was justified by a compelling interest in avoiding a violation of the Establishment Clause.
The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals.

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 state university's denial of funding from a mandatory student activities fund to an otherwise eligible student publication, solely because the publication's editorial viewpoint is religious, violate the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice Kennedy

Yes. The University's denial of funding violates the Free Speech Clause because it constitutes viewpoint discrimination, and providing the funding would not violate the Establishment Clause. The SAF created a limited public forum, and once the University chose to fund student publications, it could not exclude a publication based on its religious viewpoint. The prohibition on funding publications that 'primarily promote or manifest' religious beliefs is not a permissible content-based distinction but rather an impermissible discrimination based on a specific perspective. The University’s Establishment Clause defense fails because the SAF program is neutral towards religion; it is open to all CIOs regardless of their ideology. Furthermore, the funds are paid directly to a third-party printer, not to the religious organization itself, and the University requires CIOs to issue disclaimers of any official endorsement, all of which severs any link of government endorsement of religion.

Concurring - Justice O'Connor

Yes. While this case presents a conflict between the principle of government neutrality and the prohibition on state funding of religious activities, specific features of this program show it does not violate the Establishment Clause. First, student organizations are explicitly independent of the University and must issue disclaimers. Second, funds are paid directly to third-party vendors, ensuring they are used only for the secular purpose of printing. Third, the publication exists in a diverse forum with 15 other student publications, making any perception of University endorsement of one particular message unlikely. Finally, the nature of the student fee, which may be subject to opt-out challenges, distinguishes it from a general tax assessment used to support religion.

Concurring - Justice Thomas

Yes. The University's action constitutes impermissible viewpoint discrimination. The dissent's historical analysis of the Establishment Clause is flawed; the Framers' primary concern was prohibiting government preferences for particular religious sects, not excluding religious adherents from participating in neutral, generally available government benefit programs. History is replete with examples of neutral government support that benefited religious entities, such as tax exemptions and the funding of congressional chaplains, which demonstrates that a rigid no-aid principle is inconsistent with the original understanding of the Establishment Clause.

Dissenting - Justice Souter

No. The University’s denial of funding is not only permissible but is compelled by the Establishment Clause. The Court, for the first time, approves direct state funding of core religious activities, specifically religious evangelism. The 'Wide Awake' publication is not merely expressing a viewpoint; it is preaching and proselytizing, and the Establishment Clause categorically forbids using public funds, such as a mandatory student fee, for the direct subsidization of such religious indoctrination. The neutrality of the funding program is not sufficient to overcome this core prohibition against direct aid to religion, and the distinction of paying a third-party printer instead of the organization directly is a meaningless formality.

Analysis:

This decision significantly clarified the relationship between the Free Speech and Establishment Clauses, particularly in the context of government funding. It extended the principles from cases involving equal access to facilities (like Lamb's Chapel) to the realm of direct financial subsidies, establishing that viewpoint neutrality requires equal treatment for religious speech in limited public forums. The ruling solidified the idea that religious speakers cannot be singled out for disfavored treatment in otherwise neutral government benefit programs. By focusing on the program's neutrality and the use of safeguards like third-party payments and disclaimers, the Court provided a framework for how the government can facilitate private religious speech without violating the Establishment Clause.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of the University of Virginia (1995)

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