Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, Inc.

Supreme Court of the United States · 2006 · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureConstitutional LawFirst AmendmentSpending ClauseExpressive AssociationCompelled SpeechSolomon Amendmentmilitary recruiters

Facts

Law schools that were members of FAIR opposed the military's policy regarding homosexuals and wanted to restrict military recruiting on campus under their nondiscrimination policies. Congress enacted the Solomon Amendment, which conditions specified federal funding on a school's giving military recruiters access to campuses and students at least equal in quality and scope to that provided to any other employer. The parties agreed that compliance required law schools to give military recruiters the same access as the nonmilitary recruiter receiving the most favorable treatment. FAIR argued that requiring equal access and related recruiting assistance, such as e-mails and notices, violated the law schools' First Amendment rights of speech and association.

Issue

Whether the Solomon Amendment, which conditions certain federal funds on law schools' giving military recruiters equal access to campuses and students, violates the First Amendment freedoms of speech or expressive association. Also, whether the statute can be satisfied merely by applying the same nondiscrimination policy to all recruiters, including the military.

Rule

Congress may condition federal funding on schools' providing military recruiters access to campuses and students at least equal in quality and scope to that provided to any other employer, because the First Amendment would not bar Congress from imposing that equal-access requirement directly. The Solomon Amendment regulates conduct rather than speech, does not impermissibly compel schools to speak or to host speech in a way that alters their own message, does not violate expressive association because recruiters are outsiders rather than members of the school's association, and even if treated as regulating expressive conduct, it satisfies O'Brien because the regulation promotes a substantial governmental interest that would be achieved less effectively absent the regulation.

🔒

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.

Lakeview Law Center in Chicago lets most employers interview students in its career office, reserve meeting rooms through the school portal, and receive student-resume packets. Because one employer refuses to sign the school's antidiscrimination statement, the school bars that employer and also bars Navy recruiters, arguing that it applies the same policy to everyone who refuses the statement.

If a federal statute conditions funds on giving military recruiters access to campus and students at least equal in quality and scope to that provided to any other employer, is Lakeview likely in compliance?

Explanation. The controlling rule focuses on the result achieved, not the content or neutrality of the school's policy. A school does not satisfy an equal-access statute merely by applying the same rule to all recruiters if, in practice, other employers receive better access than military recruiters. The military must receive access at least equal in quality and scope to that provided to the most favored nonmilitary employer.