Download - Higher Education Law Case List
-
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.