Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic & Institutional Rights, Inc.

Supreme Court of United States
547 U.S. 47 (2006)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Congress may condition the receipt of federal funds on a university's willingness to provide military recruiters with campus access equal to that of other employers without violating the university's First Amendment rights of free speech and expressive association.

Facts:

Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, Inc. (FAIR) is an association of law schools with policies opposing discrimination based on sexual orientation.
FAIR members objected to the U.S. military's policy regarding homosexuals in the armed forces.
Due to this objection, many member law schools sought to deny or limit military recruiters' access to their campuses and students.
Congress enacted the Solomon Amendment, which specifies that if any part of an institution denies military recruiters access equal to that of other employers, the entire institution will lose certain federal funds.
Initially, the Department of Defense (DOD) informally interpreted the statute to require access 'equal in quality and scope' to that provided to other recruiters.
After a district court ruling questioned this interpretation, Congress amended the Solomon Amendment to explicitly codify the 'equal in quality and scope' standard.

Procedural Posture:

The Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, Inc. (FAIR) sued the Secretary of Defense in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, seeking a preliminary injunction against the Solomon Amendment.
The District Court, a trial court, denied the preliminary injunction, concluding that FAIR was unlikely to succeed on its First Amendment claims.
FAIR appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, an intermediate appellate court.
A divided panel of the Third Circuit reversed the District Court, holding that the Solomon Amendment likely violated the First Amendment and remanded the case for the entry of a preliminary injunction.
The U.S. Government (Petitioners) sought and was granted a writ of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court.

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 the Solomon Amendment, which withholds certain federal funds from institutions of higher education that deny military recruiters access equal to that provided to other employers, violate law schools' First Amendment freedoms of speech and association?

Opinions:

Majority - Chief Justice Roberts

No. The Solomon Amendment does not violate law schools' First Amendment rights because it governs conduct, not speech, and any infringement on expressive rights is incidental and justified by the government's significant interest in raising an army. The unconstitutional conditions doctrine does not apply because Congress could directly impose the equal-access requirement without violating the First Amendment. The statute does not compel speech in the manner of cases like Barnette or Wooley; requiring schools to send logistical emails is incidental to the regulation of conduct. Furthermore, it does not unconstitutionally force schools to host or accommodate a message, as a school's recruiting activities are not inherently expressive like a parade in Hurley, and there is no risk of the military's message being attributed to the schools. The conduct of denying access is not inherently expressive and thus does not receive protection under O'Brien. Finally, the law does not violate the freedom of expressive association because it does not force a school to accept unwanted members, as in Dale, but merely requires access for outside visitors.

Analysis:

This decision significantly clarifies the distinction between conduct and speech, establishing that a regulation of conduct is not subject to heightened First Amendment scrutiny merely because it has an incidental effect on a party's ability to express a message. The ruling reinforces Congress's broad authority under its constitutional powers to raise and support armies and to use its Spending Clause power to achieve those ends. It narrows the applicability of the expressive association doctrine from Dale, distinguishing between compelled inclusion of a member into a group and mandated access for a non-member, thereby limiting the ability of organizations to claim First Amendment protection against general access requirements.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic & Institutional Rights, Inc. (2006)

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