Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia
 | |
| Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia | |
| Reference: 515 US 819 | |
| Term: 1995 | |
| Important Dates | |
| Argued: Mar 1, 1995 Decided: Jun 29, 1995 | |
| Majority | |
| Anthony Kennedy • Antonin Scalia • William Rehnquist | |
| Concurring | |
| Sandra Day O'Connor • Clarence Thomas | |
| Dissenting | |
| Ruth Bader Ginsburg • Stephen Breyer • David Souter • John Paul Stevens | |
Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia was a case decided on June 29, 1995, by the United States Supreme Court that held that the First Amendment prohibits the University of Virginia from engaging in viewpoint discrimination by denying funding to select publications based on the particular views expressed in those publications.[1]
Why it matters: The U.S. Supreme Court held that depriving religious publications of student funding amounted to viewpoint discrimination and violated the First Amendment's principle of freedom of speech by imposing unnecessary burdens on religious publications.[2]
Background
Ronald Rosenberger, a student at the University of Virginia, requested university funds to publish his magazine Wide Awake: A Christian Perspective at the University of Virginia. The university rejected his funding request and stated that it was ineligible for funding because the magazine "primarily promotes or manifests a particular belief in or about a deity or an ultimate reality." After Rosenberger's funding request was denied, he appealed to the authorities at the university. The dean of students upheld the denial of funding for his newspaper.[2]
Rosenberger and the Center for Individual Rights filed a lawsuit against the University of Virginia in the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia. Rosenberger argued that the University violated his First Amendment right to freedom of speech. The University of Virginia argued that they could not provide funding to a religious publication, and to do so would be a violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment.
The district court ruled that the university did not participate in viewpoint discrimination when it refused to fund Wide Awake. The university's concern with violating the establishment clause, according to the court, justified not subsidizing the publication. The court reasoned that the state's concerns with violating the establishment clause of the First Amendment warranted withholding funding from the publication.[2]
Rosenberger appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit which ruled that the university had engaged in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination that was nonetheless justified because providing funding to the Wide Awake would violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment. Rosenberger appealed to the United States Supreme Court.[2]
Oral argument
Oral argument was held on March 1, 1995. The case was decided on June 29, 1995.[3]
Decision
The Supreme Court decided 5-4 that the University of Virginia violated Rosenberger's First Amendment right to freedom of speech and freedom of the press and engaged in viewpoint discrimination when it denied him funding to publish Wide Awake: A Christian Perspective at the University of Virginia.
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion and was joined by Justices William Rehnquist, Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas.[2]
Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas wrote separate concurring opinions.[2]
Justice David Souter wrote a separate dissenting opinion and was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens, and Stephen Breyer.[2]
Opinions
Opinion of the court
Justice Anthony Kennedy delivered the 5-4 opinion of the court and ruled that the University of Virginia violated Rosenberger's First Amendment right to freedom of speech by refusing to provide financial assistance to his school publication due to the content of his message.
Justice Kennedy argued that it is axiomatic that "government cannot regulate speech based on its content." He argued that speech can be constrained if it is in the context of a limited forum and said that "content discrimination may be permissible if it preserves the purposes of that limited forum." He argued that the student activities fund that provided funding to students to circulate campus publications was created "to encourage a diversity of views from private speakers" through the reimbursement of student activities costs. He argued that because the fund was created to reimburse established student organizations the university could not withhold funding from any established student organizations without participating in viewpoint discrimination. Therefore, Justice Kennedy argued that the funds had to be available to all student groups. He argued that the University of Virginia, by preventing Rosenberger's group from receiving funding because of the content of his publication, abridged the right to freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment.[4]
Concurring opinions
O'Connor's concurring opinion
Justice O'Connor wrote a concurring opinion and argued that the case was at the intersection of two First Amendment disputes: the "intersection of the principle of government neutrality and the prohibition on state funding of religious activities." She argued that Rosenberger's publication did not violate the establishment clause and provided a four-part test to prove that it did not. First, she argued that Wide Awake was not published directly by the University of Virginia, so the publication was "strictly independent" from the university. Second, she argued that the student activities fund reimbursements may only be used for permitted student activities, such as writing a magazine, and that those activities did not include the establishment of a church. Third, the publication did not express the University of Virginia's message because the student activities fund also funded a "wide array of nonreligious, anti-religious and competing religious viewpoints." And Fourth, the fund was not the university's money, but came from the students; therefore, the University of Virginia was not contributing money to Rosenberger's magazine.[2]
Thomas' concurring opinion
Justice Thomas wrote a concurring opinion and argued that the establishment clause never intended to ensure that no public funding could ever go to religious causes, but rather that the establishment clause was intended to keep the states from taxing citizens to establish a state church and compel attendance. Justice Thomas' opinion cited James Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments. He argued,
| “ | Contrary to the dissent's suggestion, Madison's objection to the assessment bill did not rest on the premise that religious entities may never participate on equal terms in neutral government programs. Nor did Madison embrace the argument that forms the linchpin of the dissent: that monetary subsidies are constitutionally different from other neutral benefits programs. Instead, Madison's comments are more consistent with the neutrality principle that the dissent inexplicably discards. According to Madison, the Virginia assessment was flawed because it 'violate[d] that equality which ought to be the basis of every law. | ” |
Justice Thomas argued that the University of Virginia violated equality and neutrality when it withheld Rosenburger's magazine reimbursement and that equality and neutrality were the basis of the establishment clause, not the principle that religion can never receive public funding. He argued that the University of Virginia and the dissent misunderstood the establishment clause, that the University of Virginia violated Rosenberger's First Amendment right to freedom of speech, and that it discriminated against the message of his publication when it withheld funding.[2]
Dissenting opinion
Justice David Souter wrote a dissenting opinion and was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens, and Stephen Breyer. Justice Souter argued, "The Court today, for the first time, approves direct funding of core religious activities by an arm of the State." He argued that the court approved state funding for religious activities "after erroneous treatment of some familiar principles of law implementing the First Amendment's Establishment and Speech Clauses." He argued that Justice Thomas misinterpreted James Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments and that "Madison strongly inveighed against the proposed aid for religion for a host of reasons." Finally, he argued that it was impossible to approve of Rosenberger's publication without creating a precedent to use state funding to support religious establishment because there were no legal means to distinguish between public funding for religious writings and the establishment of religious institutions: "there is no warrant for distinguishing among public funding sources for purposes of applying the First Amendment’s prohibition of religious establishment."[2]
Impact
| Federalism |
|---|
| •Key terms • Court cases •Major arguments • State responses to federal mandates • Federalism by the numbers • Index of articles about federalism |
Rosenberger v. Rector established that public universities did not violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment when giving student aid to religious publications. Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court held that depriving religious publications of funding amounted to viewpoint discrimination and violated the First Amendment's principle of freedom of speech by imposing unnecessary burdens on religious publications.[2]
See also
External links
- Full text of case syllabus and opinions (Justia)
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Search Google News for this topic
Footnotes
- ↑ MTSU, Rosenberger v. Rectors, accessed October 17, 2022
- ↑ 2.00 2.01 2.02 2.03 2.04 2.05 2.06 2.07 2.08 2.09 2.10 JUSTIA, Rosenberger v. Rectors of the University of Virginia, accessed October 17, 2022
- ↑ Oyez, Rosenberger v. Board of Rectors, accessed October 17, 2022
- ↑ MTSU, Rosenberger v. Rectors and Visitors of the University of Virginia, accessed October 21, 2022
- ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
| |||||