Mandatory Student Fees and the First Amendment: Background and Analysis of Issues in Southworth v. Grebe (CRS Report for Congress)
Premium Purchase PDF for $24.95 (19 pages)
add to cart or
subscribe for unlimited access
Pro Premium subscribers have free access to our full library of CRS reports.
Subscribe today, or
request a demo to learn more.
| Release Date |
Feb. 15, 2000 |
| Report Number |
RL30433 |
| Report Type |
Report |
| Authors |
T.J. Halstead, American Law Division |
| Source Agency |
Congressional Research Service |
Summary:
The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides that "Congress shall
make
no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridge
the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the government for a redress of grievances." The Supreme Court of the United States has
established that the First Amendment's free speech guarantee contains, as necessary corollaries, the
right not to speak, and the right not to be compelled to support the speech of others.
Based on these principles, students of the University of Wisconsin filed suit against the school's
Board of Regents, asserting that the use of objecting students' mandatory student activity fees to
support political and ideological groups violated their First Amendment rights of free speech, free
exercise, and free association. This assertion by the plaintiffs raised a conflict between the general
principle that academic institutions may provide a neutral, non-discriminatory forum for the
expression of diverse ideas and the maxim that individuals cannot be required to support political
or ideological viewpoints to which they are opposed.
In considering this conflict, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit looked to
Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of University of Virginia , where the Supreme Court
ruled that
disbursement of student fees must be made on a viewpoint neutral basis. While the Court did not
address the issue of whether such fees were violative of the First Amendment in
Rosenberger , it did
state that the analysis of the question would be controlled by standards established in two of its
earlier decisions, Keller v. State Bar of California and Abood v. Detroit Board of
Education. In those
cases, dealing with bar and teacher's union dues respectively, the Court ruled that members of such
organizations could be required to fund activities which are germane to the purpose for which the
organization was established, but could not be compelled to fund activities of a political or
ideological nature.
Applying this germaneness standard to the academic context, the court of appeals determined
that the allocation of student fees to political and ideological groups was unconstitutional.
Specifically, the court explained that a university's interest in providing for diverse expression was
not sufficiently germane to the educational process to justify such forced funding. A key factor in
the court's decision was its conclusion that the disbursements placed too great a burden on the First
Amendment rights of objecting students, effectively forcing them to subsidize speech that was
anathemic to their personal beliefs.
While the Seventh Circuit employed established precedent in its analysis, its conclusion
conflicts with the decisions of other courts. Because of this difference among the circuit courts, the
Supreme Court granted certiorari on the question of whether such fee disbursements offend First
Amendment principles. A decision in Board of Regents v. Southworth  is expected
this term.
