The Oyez Project Virtual Tour of the Supreme Court Building

Abstract

Granted: Monday, May 2, 2005
Argument: Tuesday, December 6, 2005
Decision: Monday, March 6, 2006
Issues: First Amendment, Miscellaneous

Advocates

Paul D. Clement (argued the cause for Petitioners)
E. Joshua Rosenkranz (argued the cause for Respondents)

Facts of the Case

The Solomon Amendment, 10 U.S.C. 983(b)(1), withholds some federal funding from colleges and universities that deny U.S. military recruiters the same access to students that other employers are given. The Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights challenged the law, arguing that it violated the schools' First Amendment rights to expressive association by requiring them to assist in military recruitment. The district court rejected the suit, but a Third Court of Appeals panel reversed. It held that, while the schools still had the right to forfeit funds so as to avoid unwanted endorsement of military policy under the amendment, forcing the schools to make such a decision was unconstitutional. Congress could not require them to forfeit a constitutional right in order to receive federal funds.

Question

Does the Solomon Amendment, which witholds certain federal funds from colleges and universities that restrict the access of military recruiters to students, violate the First Amendment?

Conclusion

No. The Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts, held that the Solomon Amendment regulated conduct, not speech, and was therefore constitutional. Including military recruiters in receptions and interviews does not necessarily indicate university endorsement of the recruiters, so requiring their inclusion does not constitute compelled speech in violation of the First Amendment. This would be true even if Congress had decided to make the requirement direct, rather than making it indirect as a condition for receiving federal funds. Roberts wrote, "Because the First Amendment would not prevent Congress from directly imposing the Solomon Amendment's access requirement, the statute does not place an unconstitutional condition on the receipt of federal funds."

Supreme Court Justice Opinions and Votes (by Ideology)

Sort by Seniority
(More information here)
Decision: 8 votes for Rumsfeld, 0 vote(s) against
Legal Provision: 10 U.S.C. 983
Did not participate
Alito
Voted with the majority
Stevens
Voted with the majority
Souter
Voted with the majority
Ginsburg
Voted with the majority
Breyer
Voted with the majority
Kennedy
Wrote the majority opinion
Roberts
Voted with the majority
Scalia
Voted with the majority
Thomas
Full Opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts, Jr.

Cite this page

The Oyez Project, Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights (FAIR), 547 U.S. ___ (2006),
available at: <http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2005/2005_04_1152/>
(last visited ).