Widmar v. Vincent

Supreme Court of United States
454 U.S. 263 (1981)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A state university that creates a forum generally open for use by student groups cannot deny a registered student religious group access to its facilities for worship and discussion based on the content of its speech without violating the First Amendment's protection of free speech.

Facts:

The University of Missouri at Kansas City (UMKC), a state university, has a policy of officially recognizing over 100 student groups and making its facilities available for their meetings.
Students at UMKC pay a mandatory activity fee that helps defray the costs of these student activities.
From 1973 to 1977, a registered student religious group named Cornerstone was regularly granted permission to use university facilities for its meetings.
Cornerstone's meetings were open to the public and included prayer, hymns, Bible commentary, and discussion of religious views.
In 1977, UMKC informed Cornerstone that it could no longer use university facilities.
The university based this exclusion on a regulation prohibiting the use of university buildings or grounds 'for purposes of religious worship or religious teaching.'

Procedural Posture:

Eleven student members of Cornerstone brought suit against the University in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, alleging violations of their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
The District Court, ruling on cross-motions for summary judgment, upheld the university's regulation, finding it was required by the Establishment Clause.
The students, as appellants, appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the regulation was an unconstitutional content-based discrimination against religious speech.
The University, as petitioner, sought and was granted a writ of certiorari from 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 a state university's policy that excludes registered student groups from using its facilities for religious worship and discussion, while making those facilities generally available to other student groups, violate the students' First Amendment rights to freedom of speech?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice Powell

Yes. A state university's policy that excludes registered student groups from using its facilities for religious worship and discussion violates the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech. By making its facilities generally available to student groups, the university created a limited public forum. Religious worship and discussion are forms of speech and association protected by the First Amendment, and excluding a group based on the religious content of its speech is a form of content-based discrimination. To justify such discrimination, the university must show its regulation is necessary to serve a compelling state interest and is narrowly drawn. The university's asserted interest in complying with the Establishment Clause is not compelling because an 'equal access' policy does not have the primary effect of advancing religion; any benefit to religion is incidental and does not confer state approval. Furthermore, the state's interest in a stricter separation of church and state under its own constitution cannot outweigh the students' federally protected free speech rights.

Dissenting - Justice White

No. The university regulation does not violate the Federal Constitution. While the Establishment Clause does not prohibit the university from providing access, it does not require it to do so. The majority incorrectly equates religious worship with other forms of speech, a proposition that would empty the Religion Clauses of their independent meaning and conflict with precedents like those prohibiting state-sponsored prayer in schools. The burden on the students' free exercise of religion is minimal, as they could meet just off campus. The state's interest in maintaining a definitive separation between church and state, as reflected in its own constitution, is a permissible and sufficiently strong end to justify this minimal burden.

Concurring - Justice Stevens

Yes. The university's refusal to allow the group to meet on campus is unjustified, but the majority's reasoning is flawed. The Court's use of 'public forum' and 'compelling state interest' analysis is inappropriate for a university setting and may undermine academic freedom. Universities must be free to make content-based decisions to allocate resources and fulfill their educational mission. However, they may not engage in viewpoint discrimination. Since the university would permit groups to discuss anti-religious or skeptical viewpoints, it cannot suppress a group that wishes to express a belief in God. The university’s fear of an Establishment Clause violation is groundless, and its policy amounts to impermissible viewpoint discrimination.

Analysis:

This landmark decision established the principle of 'equal access' for religious speech in limited public forums on state university campuses. It clarified that religious speech is not a disfavored category of expression under the First Amendment. The ruling affirmed that state neutrality toward religion requires equal treatment, not exclusion, and that providing such equal access does not constitute an unconstitutional establishment of religion. This case set the stage for future legislation, like the federal Equal Access Act, applying similar principles to public secondary schools, and it remains a foundational precedent in cases involving religious expression in government-created forums.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Widmar v. Vincent (1981)

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

Premium Feature