Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System v. Southworth

Supreme Court of the United States · 2000 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawFirst AmendmentCompelled SpeechUniversity Student FeesViewpoint NeutralityFirst Amendmentmandatory student activity feeviewpoint neutrality

Facts

The University of Wisconsin required full-time students at its Madison campus to pay a mandatory, nonrefundable student activity fee, part of which funded registered student organizations engaged in extracurricular expression, including political and ideological speech. Most funding decisions were made through student-government-administered funds, and the parties stipulated that those allocation processes were administered in a viewpoint-neutral fashion and were not used by the University to advocate a particular point of view. A third funding mechanism allowed the student body to approve or disapprove funding for a particular organization by referendum, and the parties agreed their viewpoint-neutrality stipulation did not extend to that process. The student respondents objected to being compelled to support speech by some funded organizations that conflicted with their beliefs.

Issue

Whether the First Amendment permits a public university to require students to pay a mandatory activity fee used to fund extracurricular speech by student organizations, including political and ideological speech, over some students' objections. Also, whether a student referendum mechanism for funding or defunding organizations is consistent with the First Amendment.

Rule

The First Amendment permits a public university to charge a mandatory student activity fee to fund a program facilitating extracurricular student speech if the program is viewpoint neutral. In this setting, the germane-speech limitation used in union and bar-association compelled-subsidy cases is not workable, and the constitutional safeguard for objecting students is viewpoint neutrality in the allocation of funding support.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Lakefront State University, a public university in Ohio, requires every full-time student to pay a $260 annual activities fee. The fee funds student organizations ranging from environmental clubs to religious discussion groups to partisan debate societies under written criteria that reviewers apply without regard to the organizations' viewpoints. Nora Kim objects that some funded groups advocate ideas she finds deeply offensive and sues for a refund of the portion attributable to those groups.

How should a court rule on Nora's First Amendment claim?

Explanation. The controlling rule is that a public university may impose a mandatory student activity fee to support extracurricular student speech so long as the program is administered with viewpoint neutrality. The majority rejected both a flat ban on compelled subsidies in this context and any constitutional requirement of refunds or opt-outs. It also held that the germaneness approach from union and bar-association cases is not workable for a university seeking to stimulate a broad range of ideas. (Derived from Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System v. Southworth (2000).)