Saunders v. Virginia Polytechnic Institute
417 F.2d 1127 (1969)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state university violates a student's First Amendment rights when it denies them readmission for participating in a peaceful, non-disruptive protest based on an administrative classification, such as not being a "matriculated student," where that classification is not justified by a compelling governmental interest.
Facts:
- Thomas J. Saunders was a student at Virginia Polytechnic Institute (VPI) with a high academic average and a history of anti-war activism.
- In April 1969, Saunders resigned from VPI due to heavy involvement in extra-curricular activities but immediately applied for readmission for the fall term.
- On May 6, 1969, VPI officially accepted Saunders for readmission for the fall quarter.
- VPI later announced that General William G. Westmoreland would speak at the June 7, 1969, commissioning exercises.
- Saunders' anti-war group planned a peaceful demonstration for the June 7 event, which was to take place after all classes and exams for the semester were complete.
- VPI had a policy prohibiting individuals who were not "matriculated students" from participating in demonstrations on campus.
- Because he had technically resigned, VPI officials warned Saunders that participating in the protest would violate this policy.
- Saunders participated in the demonstration, which was peaceful and did not disrupt the ceremonies, after which VPI revoked his previously granted readmission.
Procedural Posture:
- Thomas J. Saunders sued Virginia Polytechnic Institute in federal district court.
- Saunders sought a preliminary injunction to compel VPI to readmit him.
- The district court denied the preliminary injunction and dismissed Saunders' complaint.
- Saunders appealed the district court's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
- A single circuit judge issued a temporary injunction allowing Saunders to attend VPI for the fall term pending the full court's decision.
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 violate the First Amendment rights of a student, who has already been accepted for readmission, by revoking that acceptance solely because he participated in a peaceful, non-disruptive on-campus protest during a period when he was not technically a "matriculated student"?
Opinions:
Majority - Winter, Circuit Judge
Yes. A state university violates a student's First Amendment rights by denying readmission based on participation in a peaceful protest under these circumstances. Citing Tinker v. Des Moines, the court affirmed that students retain First Amendment rights on campus for expression that does not materially and substantially disrupt school operations. The court found VPI's distinction between Saunders (as a non-"matriculated student") and other students to be insubstantial for constitutional purposes, especially since other students also had to apply for readmission for the fall term. Because this classification infringed upon the fundamental right of free expression, VPI was required to show it was "necessary to promote a compelling governmental interest," which it failed to do. The court rejected VPI's justification that it needed to control non-students to prevent disruption, reasoning that Saunders was functionally a member of the academic community and that VPI had other means, such as law enforcement, to address actual disturbances.
Analysis:
This decision extends the student speech protections of Tinker v. Des Moines beyond currently enrolled K-12 students to individuals with a significant and ongoing connection to a state university. It prevents public universities from using technical administrative classifications, like "matriculated" versus "readmitted," as a pretext to selectively punish disfavored speech. The case solidifies that when a state actor's classification infringes upon a fundamental right like freedom of speech, it must survive strict scrutiny. This precedent limits a university's ability to regulate peaceful protest by drawing fine distinctions among members of its own academic community.
