Rosenberger v. Rector And Visitors Of The University Of Virginia

515 U.S. 819 (1995)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

The University of Virginia supported student activities by authorizing payment of outside contractors for printing costs of a variety of student newspapers. To become eligible for reimbursement the organization must get CIO status by being run by students and complying with certain procedural requirements. The procedures include statements that the CIO's are not organizations or part of the University and that the University does not approve their goals or activities. All CIOs can apply for funds from the Student Activities Fund (SAF). Those monies are raised from a mandatory $14 fee per student per semester. The Student Council has the authority to disburse those funds, reviewable by a faculty body chaired by the Vice President for Student Affairs. The general guideline for student reimbursement is that the activities are related to the educational purpose of the University of Virginia. SAF support is excluded from religious, philanthropic organizations, political activities, and activities that would put in jeopardy the University's tax-exempt status. Wide Awake Publications qualified as a CIO. Wide Awake (WAP) published a Christian Perspective at the University of Va. By June 1992 WAP distributed 5,000 copies of its newspaper to students free of charge. WAP is not a religious organization. WAP requested that SAF pay its printer $5,862 for the cost of printing its newspaper. SAF denied reimbursement because it deemed WAP to be a religious activity. Three of its editors and members filed suit. They alleged that refusal to authorize payment of the printing costs of the publication, solely on the basis of its religious editorial viewpoint, violated their rights to freedom of speech and press, to the free exercise of religion, and equal protection of the law. The District Court ruled for the University, holding that denial of SAF support was not an impermissible content or viewpoint discrimination against petitioners' speech, and that the University's Establishment Clause concern over its 'religious activities' was a sufficient justification for denying payment to third-party contractors. The Court of Appeals held that the Guidelines did discriminate on the basis of content. It ruled that, while the State need not underwrite speech, there was a presumptive violation of the Speech Clause when viewpoint discrimination was invoked to deny third-party payment otherwise available to CIOs. The Court of Appeals affirmed concluding that the discrimination by the University was justified by the 'compelling interest in maintaining strict separation of church and state.'