8/13/2019 Higher Education Law Case List

1/2

8/13/2019 Higher Education Law Case List

2/2

Students &

Their

Organizations

Rosenberger v. U Virginia SCOTUS University student

organization which published

newspaper with Christian

editorial viewpoint brought

action against universitychallenging denial of funds

from fund created by

university to make payments

to outside contractors for

printing costs of publications of

student groups.

denial of funding amounted to viewpoint

discrimination; exclusion of several views on an

issue is just as offensive to the First

Amendment as the exclusion of only one;

scarcity of funds does not permit university todiscriminate on the basis of viewpoint; and

program was neutral toward religion, s o that

provision of funding would not violate

establishment clause.

Government may not regulate speech bas ed on its sub stantive content or mess age it conveys. In the realm of private

speech or express ion, government regulation may not favor on e speaker over another. Government offends First

Amendment when it imposes financial burdens on certain speakers based on the content of their expression; when

government targets not subject matter but particular views taken by speaker on s ubject, violation of First Amendment is

automatically inferred. Necess ity of co nfining limited public forum to limited and legitimate purpose for which it wascreated may justify state in reserving it for certain groups or discussion of certain topics but, once it has opened limited

forum, state must respect lawful boundaries it has itself set and may not exclude speech where its distinction is not

reasonable in light of the purpose served by the forum, nor may it discriminate against speech on the basis of viewpoint.

In determining whether state is acting to preserve limits of forum it has created so that exclusion of class of speech is

legitimate, there is a dis tinction between content d iscrimination, which may be permissible if it preserves the purpose of

the limited forum, and viewpoint discrimination, which is presumed impermissible when directed against speech otherwise

within the forum's limitations. Where university did not exclude religion as a subject matter for student publications for

which it would provide funding for printing but denied funding to student journalistic efforts which had religious editorial

viewpoints, First Amendment challenge to the denial of funding would be analyzed from the standpoint of viewpoint

discrimination. It does not violate establishment clause for public university to grant access to its facilities on religion

neutral basis to wide spectrum of student groups, including groups which use meeting rooms for sectarian activities,

accompanied by some devotional exercises, and that is so even where the upkeep, maintenance, and repair of facilities

attributed to those uses is paid from student activity fund to which students are required to contribute.

Students &

Their

Organizations

U Wiscons in v. Southworth SCOTUS Students sued University of

Wisconsin board of regents

alleging that mandatory

student activity fee violated

their First Amendment rights

of free speech, free

association, and free exercise

and that the university must

grant them the choice not to

fund organizations that

engage in political and

ideological expression

offensive to their personal

beliefs.

the First Amendment permits a public university

to charge its students an activity fee used to

fund a program to f acilitate extracurricular

student speech, provided allocation of funding

support is viewpoint neutral; the viewpoint

neutrality requirement of the University of

Wisconsin fee program was in general sufficient

to protect the rights of the objecting students,

but the student referendum aspect of the

program appeared to be inconsis tent with the

viewpoint neutrality requirement, and a remand

was required; an optional or refund system is

not a co nstitution al requirement; and there is

no distinction between campus activities and

the off-campus expressive activities of funded

organizations.

The First Amendment permits a public university to charge its students an activity fee used to fund a program to facilitate

extracurricular student speech, but objecting students may insist upon certain safeguards with respect to the expressive

activities which they are required to support, and the proper measure, and the principal standard of protection for

objecting students, is the requirement of viewpoint neutrality in the allocation of funding support; the standard is not

whether the student speech is germane to the purposes of the university.

Students &

Their

Organizations

Missouri v. Horowitz SCOTUS Former medical student sued

challenging her dismissal from

medical school of public

university

student who was fully informed of faculty

dissatisfaction with her clinical progress and the

consequent threat to her graduation and

continued enrollment was accorded procedural

due process with respect to her dismissal for

academic deficiencies notwithstanding lack of a

formal hearing; academic deficiency dismissals

do not necessitate a hearing before school's

decision-making body, and record revealed no

showing of arbitrariness or capriciousness

which would warrant remand of case for

consideration of deprivation of substantive due

process

Very nature of due process negates any concept of inf lexible procedures u niversally applicable to every imaginable

situation. Significant difference between failure of a student to meet academic standards and violation by student of valid

rules of conduct calls for far less stringent procedural requirements in the case of academic dismissal. Record in medical

student's action challenging her dismissal on due process grounds left no doubt, notwithstanding references to lack of

personal hygiene and timeliness, that her dismissal was for pure academic reasons.

Students &

Their

Organizations

Michigan v. Ewing SCOTUS A university student brought

suit against the regents of a

state university challenging

the constitutionality of his

dismissal from a six-year

program of study culminating

in an undergraduate degree

and medical degree

even if a student's assumed property interest in

a six-year program of study culminating in an

undergraduate degree and a medical degree gave

rise to a substantive right under due process

clause to continued enrollment free from

arbitrary state action, the student's dismissal,

when he failed an examination required tocomplete the final two years of the program, did

not result in a due process violation; the

decision to dismiss the student without

permitting a reexamination was made

cons cientiously with clear deliberation, based

on an evaluation of h is entire academic career at

the university.

Students &

Their

Organizations

CLS v. Martinez SCOTUS Student religious organization

brought 1983 action alleging

that law school's policy of

requiring officially recognized

student groups to comply with

school's nondiscrimination

policy violated the

organization's First and

Fourteenth Amendment rights

to free speech, expressive

association, and free exercise

of religion.

law school's policy was reasonable; and policy

was viewpoint neutral

Under the First Amendment, restrictions on access to a limited public forum must be reasonable and viewpoint neutral. In

the context of public accommodations, laws and regulations that constrain associational freedom are subject to close

scrutiny, and are permitted, under the First Amendment, only if they serve compelling state interests that are unrelated to

the suppression of ideas-interests that cannot be advanced through significantly less restrictive means. Under the First

Amendment, the State may not exclude speech where its d istinction is no t reasonable in light of the purpos e served by th eforum, nor may it discriminate against speech on the basis of viewpoint. In light of the special characteristics of the school

environment, law school's policy of requiring officially recognized student groups to comply with school's

nondiscrimination policy was reasonable, for purposes of application of the limited-public-forum analysis in student

religious organization's 1983 action alleging that school's policy violated the organization's First and Fourteenth

Amendment rights to free speech, expressive assoc iation, and free exercise of religion; open access p olicy ensured that the

leadership, educational, and social opportunities afforded by officially recognized student groups were available to all

students, helped the school police the terms of its policy without inquiring into a student group's motivation for

membership restrictions, encou raged tolerance, coop eration, and learning, and advanced state-law goals. Under the First

Amendment, a regulation that serves purpos es unrelated to the content of expression is deemed neutral, even if it h as an

incidental effect on some speakers or messages but not others.