## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N os. 09

- 1102 & 09

- 1112 B AD GE R C ATH O LIC, I NC ., for m er ly k no wn as Ro m anCa th o l i c F o unda ti o n, U W –M ad iso n, In c ., e tal ., P la intif fs-A pp ellees, C ross -App el lants , v.

D AVI D G. W ALSH, e tal ., D efend a nts-A pp ella nts, C ross-A pp ellees

.
A pp ealsfr o m the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the Western Di stricto f Wisc onsin
. No . 07- C-505

—L ynnA delm an, Ju dge .
A RG UE D O CT OB ER 27, 2009

— D ECIDED S EP TE MBE R 1, 2010

Befo reE A STE RB ROOK

,Chie f Judge,andE VANS and W ILLIAMS

,Circu it Judges . E A S T E RB R OO K, Chi e

f Judg e . T h e U n ive rs ity o fW isc on sin at M adis on c h ar ges ev er y s tudent a fee, wh i ch go es2 N os. 09

- 1102 & 09

- 1112 i nt o funds f o re xt r ac ur r ic ul ara ct i vi ti es . The fund dedi ca te d to stude nt se r vi ce s ( su ch as co uns el ing and tu to r i ng ) di st r ibut es abo ut$ 2. 5 m i l l i o n a nnua l l y . M an y ofthe re ci pie nts use the m oneyto o ff setthe cos ts of speech: fund ed or gani zati ons i ncl ud e F H King ( w hi ch prom ote s s ustainabl e a gr i cul ture ) , the M ult iC ultural S tu d entCo al i ti o n ( whi chpr o m o te s “s o ci alj us ti ce a nd th e p r i n c i p l e s o f u n i t y, i n t e g r i t y, r e s p o n s ib i l i t y, a nd r es pec t” ) , a nd Sex OutLo ud ( whi chpr o m o te s “h ea l thy se xua l i ty ”)
. W he n s o m e stude nt s o bj ec te d to pa y i ng f or othe rs t ud e nt s ’ s pe e c h, the Uni v e r s i t y de fe nd e d i ts prog ra m as cr eat i ng a publi c f or um that advances i ts ac ade m ic mi ss i o n us i ngv i ewpo i nt
- ne ut r alc r i te r i a. The Sup rem e C ou rt accep ted this assu ran c e th at fun d s are dist ributed w i thout re gar d to the s peaker s’ per sp ecti ves and concl ud ed that a neutr al, f or u m - cre ating pro gr am coul d b e fund ed by a uni f or m fee col l ecte d fr om ea ch student. U niversi ty of Wis consin v. Southw orth , 529 U
. S. 217 (2000 ). A m ong the ap p li can ts for fun d s a t the U niversity’s M adison c am pu s i s a stud ent o rg ani zati on that, wh en i t a pp l i ed f orreco gni ti on a s a “r egi ste re d student or gani zati o n” e l i g ib l e f o rmo ne y, wa s kno wn a s the Uni v e r s i ty ofW i sco nsi n Rom an C athol i c F oundati on. In 200 7 i t ch an g ed i ts na m e to Ro m anCa th o l i c F o unda ti on, U W –M adis on. Last yea r the gro up bec am e Badger Catho l i c. W e us e th e cur r en t na m e, whi chha s th e v i r t ue o fb r e v i t y i fn o ts t ab i l i t y . Ba dg e rCatho l i c ’ s a ppli cati on f orstu d en t- or gani zati on s tatus w as rej ecte d be ca us e i ts mem be r s an d o ffi ce r s i nc l ude d s o m e no nst u d en ts , su c h as a b ish op . A reo rg an iza tio n e v e n t u allyN os. 09

- 1102 & 09

- 1112 3

s a t i s fi e d th e Un i v e r s i t y th a t s t u d e n t s a r e i n c o n t r o l , a nd the Unive rs i ty’ s Chancel l orapprov ed Badger Cath olicas a re gis te re d st u d en t o rg an iza tio n in 2 00 7. T o b e e ligib le f orr eim burse m ent, a gr oup m ust s ubm i t a budget f or th e appr ova lo fs tu den t g o ve r nm en t an d e ve ntua l l y the adm i ni str ati on. Badger Cathol i c has had tro u b l e with th is p ro c es s. E ac h bu d ge t h as be e n rejec te d atlea st in part by th e s tudent go ver nm ent, the adm i ni str ati on, o r both on the grou nd th at m uc h of B ad ger C a th oli c’s spe ec h i s r el i g i o us i n c ha r ac te r . The Uni ve r si tywon’t pay f or thre e cate gor i es ofspeec h: worshi p, pro sel yti zi ng, an d r el i g i o us i ns tru ction. I t i s wi l l i ngt o us e stude nt a c t i v i t y fe e s f o rwh a ti tc a l l s di a l o g, di s c us s i o n, o rde bate fro m a re l i gi ous per specti ve, but not f oranythi ng tha t i t l ab el s wor sh i p, pr o se l y ti zing, o rr el i g i o us i ns truct i o n. The se c at eg ori es ha ve l i tt l e m ea ni ngo n the i ro wn, b ut e x a mp l e s d e mo n s t r a t e w h e r e th e U n i v e r s i t y h a s d r a wn th e l i ne . O ne o fthe di st r i ctc o ur t’ s o pi ni o ns s et s o utthe six sp eci fi c pro gr am s forwh i ch the U ni ver si ty has re fused to r ei m burse any ofthe gr oup ’s exp enses . 59 0 F. S upp. 2 d 1 08 3, 1 08 8– 89 ( W
. D. W i s. 2 00 8)
. One pr o g r am i s ca l l ed “ment o r i ngf or b us y s tu den ts ” an d en ta i l s m ee ting s be twe ens tu den ts an d “ o ne o fthe spi r i tu aldi r ec to rs fo rs pi r i tu alment o r i ng/ co uns el i ng an d to talk abou t any th ing the y w an ted f or a half- hou r. The sp iri tu aldi r ec to r s i nc l ude d Ca th o l i c nuns a nd pri est s who w oul d offer guidance o r praye r i fr equeste d by th e st u dent. ” An othe r prog ra m was a s um m err etr eat f orl eader shi p tr ai ni ng. Dur in g the f our- day r etr eat, thre e m ass es w er e s ai d and fo ur co m m u n alpray er s e s s i o ns h e l d.4 N os. 09

- 1102 & 09

- 1112 A lthou gh the U niversity p rom is e d th e Sup rem e C ou rt inSouthw orth to di st r ibut e funds wi th o ut r eg ar d to the conte nt and vi ew poi nt o fthe students’ speec h, i t has concl ud ed that thi s pro m i se does not apply to sp eech that const i tutes the pract i ce o fr el i gi on. In response to B ad ger Ca th oli c’s suit un d er 42 U
. S. C
. §1983 , the U niversi ty ( as w e ca l lthe defe nd ants col l ecti vel y) co ntended th atfundi ngf o rpr ay er, pr o se l y ti zing, o rrel ig i o us i nst r uct i o n wo ul d v iol ate the Es tabl i sh m en t Cl au se o fthe F i r stAm en dm en t ( appl i ed to the s ta te s th r o ug h the Four tee nth A m endm ent) , and that the obl i gat i on notto vi ol ate the Consti tuti on i s a co m pel l i ng int er estthat j us ti fi es a de par tu r e fr o m ne ut r al i ty
. The di st r i ctc ou rt con c l ud e d, h o we v e r, tha tr e i mbu r s i ngthe e xp e ns es of re ligiou s s p ea ke rs , th ro u gh a p ro gr am eq u ally av ai l ab l e to s ec ul ars peakers, do es no t vi o l at e th e Establ i shm ent Clause , and that, having es tabl i shed a publ i c f or u m (w hi ch i s ho w Southw orth tr eat s the stud entfee program ), the U niversity m u st not exc lud e sp eakers w ho wa nt t o us e the f o r um f o r wo r s hi p. 5 7 8 F
. S up p. 2d 1121 ( W
. D. W is. 2008) , r eco nsi derat i on deni ed, 59 0 F. Sup p . 2d 1083 (W
. D
. W is. 2008). The c o ur t en te r ed a d ecl ar at o r y j udg m en t pr o vi di ng th at th e U niversity m us t reim b u rse B ad ger C ath oli c’s acti vi ti es on the sa m e ba si s a s i t r ei m burse s o ther stude ntg r o ups . The Uni ve r si tyi s fr ee t o de cl i ne fundi ng f o ra l ls um m err et r ea ts ; i f it d oes no t payf o rt r aini ng w or k s ho ps o v e r the s ummer f o r memb e r s o f F H K i ng, it need not p ay for B a d ger C ath oli c’s retreats eithe r. Lik ew i se, i fthe U ni vers ity r efuses to fund a gr oup such as Sex O u t L ou d th at c o u n s e l s st u d en ts to en ga ge inN os. 09

- 1102 & 09

- 1112 5 “heal thy s exual i ty” ( and dist ributes contr acepti ves to re d u ce the r i sk) , i t nee d not fund a gr oup that coun se ls fro m a re l i gi ous per specti ve. I fthe U ni ver si ty deci des that no s tudent gr oup shoul d rec ei ve m or e than 1 % o f the fund , o r som e dol l arcap, i t co uld appl y that n eu tr al ru le t o B ad ge r C a t h o l i c in c om m on w ith all othe r cl ai m ants on the l i m i ted pot. Bu t havin g d ecided th atc o uns el i ngpr o g r ams a r e wi th i n the s cop e o fthe acti vi ty fee, the U ni ver si ty can not excl ud e those that offerpray eras o ne m eans ofr el i evin g the a nxie ty that m any s tudents exper i ence. T he dist r ic t c ou rt correctly read the Su p rem e C ou rt’s deci si ons i n hol ding that th e U ni ver si ty w oul d not vi ol ate the Establ i shm ent Cl ause by fund i ng Badger Cathol i c’ s p ro gr am s. Tw o deci si ons i n part i cul ar

— Wi dm ar v. Vi nc e nt, 45 4 U. S
. 26 3 ( 19 81 ) , a nd Ro se nbergerv. U niversi ty of Virgi nia , 51 5 U.S
. 81 9 ( 1995 )

— su ppo r t th atc o nc l us i o n. The U ni ver si ty ofM i sso uriatK an sa s C i ty al l owed stu d en t group s to use i ts facil iti es, bu t it w ithh eld p erm i ssi on f or a gr oup cal l ed C or n er st on e, w hi ch w an te d t o u se a m ee tin g ro om for “ re ligiou s w or sh ip and rel i gi ous di scussi on . ” Wi dm ar, 454 U .S
. at26 5. (Corn erston e’s norm al progr am i nc l ude d “p rayer, hy m ns , Bibl e co m m en ta r y, a nd discu ss i o n o fr el i g i o us vie w s a n d e x p er ien c es ”, id

. at26 5 n. 2. ) The U ni ver si ty of M iss ou ri c on te n d ed , j u st as th e U n ive rs ity of W isc on sin has done, thatany su b sidy t o w or shi p w oul d vi ol ate the Establ i shm ent Cl ause

— and i t a dd ed that provi ding a r en t- fr ee r o o m o n c am p us i s a su bs i dy as s ur ely a s th e tr an sfero fc as h t o pa y f o rr en tinga r o o m o ffc ampus. The6 N os. 09

- 1102 & 09

- 1112 J usti ces agr eed with the p re m ise that a fre e r oo m i s a f or m o fs u b sidy but not w i th the co ncl usi on that a subsi dy vi ol ate s th e Establ i shm ent Cl ause. A s l ong as the Unive rs i ty m ake s f aci l i ti es equal l y a vai l ab l e t o se cul ara nd s ec ta r i ang r o ups , the Co ur t he l d, the r e i s no c o ns t i t ut i o na lp r o b l e m. Ind e e d, Wi dm ara dded, e xc l udi ng a r e l i g i o u s s p e a k e r wo u l d a mo u n tt o c o n t e n td i s c r i mi nati on, wh i ch i s forbi dd en in a p ubl i c f or um such a s th e o ne th e Uni ve r si ty ha d es tabl i sh ed. Corne r st o ne th erefore w as en titl ed to a room w he re its m e m bers coul d m eet, pray, sing hym ns, and pros el yti ze. A decade a fterWi dm ar, th e U n ive rs ity o f V irg in ia d e c l i n e d t o p a y f o rth e e x p e n s e o fp r i nt i ng Wi deAwake, a re ligiou s n ew sp ap er th at a st u d en t g ro u p p u b lish ed in an effo rtto ed u c at e a n d co n ve rtoth er st u d en ts (in ot h er w or d s , to p ro se lyt ize ). Th e U n ive rs ity of V irg in ia co nc ede d tha t th i s was c o nt en t di sc r i m ination b utc o ntended, j ust a s the U ni ver si ty ofW i sco nsi n h as , t h at by dev o tingpa r t o fthe s tu den t- ac ti vi tyfund to r el i g i o us sp ee c h, i t w ou ld vio lat e t h e E st ab lish m en t C lau s e. A lthoughWi dm arwas s eem i ngl y a gainst i t, the U ni ver si ty o f V i r g i ni a co nt en ded th atthe r e i s a di ffer en ce o fc o nst itu tio n al m a g n i tu d e b et w ee n p ro vid in g s er vic es in k i nd ( su cha s m ak i ngm eeting r o o m s av ai l ab l e) a nd ha nd ing over cash or reim bu rsing a reli gious sp e a ker’s expenses. The S up re m e Cour t r ej ecte d that e ffor t t o dist i ngui shWi dm ar, ho ld in g t h at c a sh an d in-k in d su b sidie s m ust be trea te d identi cal l y. 51 5 U.S
. at83 2–34
. A nd the Court re i te ra ted Wi dm ar ’ s co nc l us i o n tha t wi th

ho l di ngs uppo r t o fr el i g i o us s pee chwhene qui va l en tN os. 09

- 1102 & 09

- 1112 7

s e c u l a rs p e e c h i s fu n d ed i s a f o r m o ff o rb i d d e n v i e wpo i ntdi sc r i m i na ti o n. Id

. at82 8–30
. Deci si ons si nce R o senbe rgerr ei nfo rce i ts concl usi on that und er w ri ti ng a re l i gi ou s speake r’ s co sts , as parto f a neutr alpro gr am j us tified by the pro gr am ’ s s ecul ar benefits, does notvi ol ate the Establ i shm ent Cl ause eve n i fthe re l i gi ous s peakeruses so m e o f t he m oneyf or p ra ye r or se c ta ria n ins tr u c tio n . On e g oo d ex a m p le is Z el m an v. Sim m ons-H a rr is , 53 6 U.S
. 63 9 ( 2002 ) , wh i ch hel d that s tat es m ay allo w s choolvo uchers to be use d atr el i g i o us s ch o o l s wi th o utv i o l at i ng the Co ns ti tu ti o n, w hen the deci si on ab ou t which s choolto at tend r efl ects a pr i va te c ho i ce ab o utho w be stt o e duca te c hi l dr en . Si m i l ar l y, Good News Cl ub v. M i l f o rd C entral School, 53 3 U
. S. 98 ( 2001 ) , hel d that a scho olwould not vi ol ate th e E stabl i shm ent Cl ause by provi ding f aci l i ti es to a re l i gi ous g rou p , which pro posed to use them f or s i ng i ngr e l i g i o us s o ng s , p ra y i ng, a nd me mor i z i ngs c r i pture , wh en t h e f aci l i ti es w er e e qually a vai l abl e t o s e c u l a rg r o up s

— an d Good News Cl ub a dded th ata ny d e p a r t u r e fr o m n e u t r a l i t y w o u l d b e v i e wp o i n td i s c r i mi na ti o n tha t i s f o rbi ddeni n a pub l i c f o r um , whi chthe schoo ldi str i ct c re ate d by a l l owin g pri vate gr oups to use i ts f aci l i ti es. S ee al so Wi t t e rs v. Was hi ngt on D epartm e nt of Se r vi ces f

ortheBli nd, 4 74 U. S
. 4 81 ( 19 86 ) ( r ei m bur sing th e tu i ti o n o fa the o l o g y st ud en t do es no t o ffen d the E stab li sh m en t C lause, w he n th e sch olar s h ip i s p art of a pr o g r am th ati s ne ut r alwi thr es pec t to r el i g i o n a nd the stu d en t ch ooses w he re to use th e sch olarship ). These deci si ons dispos e o fthe U ni ver si ty’ s con tenti on that , in re fusi ng to fund Badger Cathol i c’ s pro posed8 N os. 09

- 1102 & 09

- 1112 acti vi ti es, i t was eng aged i n conte nt di scr i m i nati on ra therthan vi ew poi nt di scr i m i nati on. Tw o dist ri ct j ud ges have hand l ed parts o fthi s li ti gat i on. J ud ge Shaba z cal l ed the U ni ver si ty’ s di stinc tio n vi ew poi nt di scr i m i natio n . 200 8 U .S. D ist . L EXIS 41 37 ( W
. D. W i s. J an . 17, 2008). A fterthe sui t w as tr ansfer re d w hen J ud ge Shaba z st o pped he ar i ngc as es , J udg e Ad el m anc al l ed i t co nt en t disc ri m i nati on. 57 8 F
. S up p. 2d at11 37. Both j ud ges th ou gh t th e d isc rim in at ion u n c on st itu tio n al. T he Sup rem e C ou rt i s not alw ays clear a b o u t t he differ en c e; inR o senberg eri ts a i d th a t“ [ v ] i e wp o i n td i s c r i mi n a t i o n i s [j u s t ] an e g r e g i o u s f o r m o fc o n t e n td i s c r i mi nati on. ” 5 15 U
. S. at82 9. El sewhere i t has hel d that cont ent di scr i m i nati on ca n be part ofa l aw ful sys tem ofal l oca ti ng l i m i ted fund s; th i s i s why a uni ver si ty co ul d de cl i ne t o pa y f o ra ny r et r ea ts o rc o unseli ng , ifthe c o nt e nto fthe s pe e c h wo ul d p l a c e i t outsi de the s c o pe ofthe prog ra m . ( One exam ple , fro m Ch rist ian Legal Society v. M a rtinez , 130 S. C t. 29 71 , 299 8 (2 01 0) ( K e n n ed y, J., con cu r r ing): A un iversity can d ecline to pa y for an art h ist or ian t o a d d re ss a c on fer en c e d ev ot ed to p u b lic t r a n s i t, b e c a u s e th e a r th i s t o r i a n ’ s p e r s p e c t i v e i s o u t s i de the s cope o fthe c o nfer en ce . ) A uni ve r si tyc ande fi ne the k i nd o fextr acurr i cul aract i vi ty that i t cho ose s t o pr om ote , r ei m bur sing, s ay, a s tu den t- r un s er i es o fs i l en t m ovi es and a debate t ea m , wh i l e l eaving co unsel i ng to the s tudent-he al th se rv i ce th at the univ er si ty oper ate s i tse l f

. But the U ni ver si ty ofW i sco nsi n has c hose n t o pay f o rs t ud e nt
- l ed co un s e l i ng, a nd i t s de c i s i o n t o e xc l ud e counsel i ng tha t features p rayeri s forbi dd en under Wi dm ara nd i t s s uc c e s s o r s . T he l ab e la pp l i e d t o tha t disc ri m i nati on i s uni m port ant.N os. 09

- 1102 & 09

- 1112 9 A l though the U ni ver si ty’ s m ai n them e in the distr i ct co ur t was th at r ei m bur se m en t woul d vi o l at e the Establ i shm ent C lau se, i ts m ai n them e o n appeal i s that a publ i c ag ency is enti tl ed to withhol d funds fro m r el i g i o us s pee ch, e ve n tho ug h n o t co m m an ded by th e Establ i shm ent Clau se t o do so. Ze l m an hel d that a st ate is entitled to o ffer s c hoolvo uchers that can be cas hed at sect ar i an schoo l s but not th at it is required t o do s o . Argum ents such as Pro fess or( then j ud ge, and now p ro fess or aga i n) M cConn ell ’ s that the Consti tuti on r equi re s a st ate to f ol l ow a pri nci ple o fneutr alfund i ng have not c a r r i e d th e d a y a tth e S u p r e me C o u r t
. S e e Mi c ha e lW. M c C on n ell, TheSe l e ct i veFu ndi ng Prob l e m : Abo r t i ons an d R el igious Schoo ls , 104 H arv. L
. Rev
. 989 (1991). One re cent i l l ustr ati on o fthe J usti ces’ wil l i ngness to al l ow stat es to excl ud e som e r el i gi ous use s fro m p u b lic e x p e n d itu re s is Lo ck e v. D a vey, 540 U
. S. 712 (2004). A st ate pro gr am o fco l l ege scho l ar shi ps had a pro vi so: the m oneyco uld notbe used to stu d y f orthe m i ni stry. The Court hel d that a l though the st ate co uld have al l owed the m oneyto be spent for studie s in devot i onal th eo l o g y ( ci tingWi t t e rs ), th e re st ric tio n w as co m p at ible wi th th e F r e e Ex e r c i s e C l a u s e , b e c a u s e “ th e r e a r e s o me st at e ac ti o ns pe r m i tt ed bythe Es tabli sh m en t Cl au se b ut not re quir ed by the F re e Exerc i se Clause

. ” 5 40 U
. S. at71 9. By choo si ng notto use publi c fund s t o tr ai n m i ni ste rs , th e st at e was makinga ch o i ce no di ffer en t fr o m o per at i ng a uni ve r si tytha t includes a de par tmento fphi l o so phy butno t a depa r tmento fthe o logy or a s emi na r y . The Uni ve r si tyofW i sc o ns i n c o nt en ds th ati t ha s m ade the sor t o fchoi ce thatLo ckea pp r o v e d.10 N os. 09

- 1102 & 09

- 1112 T h a t ’ s n o t e n t i r e l y r i g h t, a n d f o r t wo r e a s o n s . F i r s t, t he C o u r t st re ss ed inLo cketha tthe s t a t e ’ s p r o g r a m di d no t evince hos ti l ity to re l i gi on. The sc hol ar shi ps coul d be us ed atpe r va si ve l y s ec ta r i anc ol l eg es , wher e pr ay era nd d ev ot ion w e r e p a rtof th e in st ru c tio n al p ro gr am ; on ly training to bec om e a m in ister w as off li m its. 540 U
. S. at 724–25. The U ni ver si ty ofW i sco nsi n, byco ntra st, does no t su ppo r t pr o g r ams tha t incl ude pr ay ero rr el i g i o us instru ction. Second , and m ore i m p o r t a nt ly, the sta te’s d ec isio n inLo ckeco ncern ed h ow to use fund s o ver w hi ch i t had r eta i ned plenary c ontr ol

. Choosi n g w hi ch pr o g r ams t o s uppo r t an d whi chno t, whethe r b y ha ving a depart m ent o f p h ilos ophy but not a s em i nary, o r by gran t in g sch olarship s to stu d y the ology but n ot p rep are f orthe m i ni str y, i s a f or m o fg ov er nm ent s peech. S ee Ple as antGr ovev. Su m m um , 129 S. Ct
. 1125 (2009); Ill inois D unes l and Pre s e r vat i on Soc i ety v. Il l i nois D epar t m e nt o f Na tura l R esou rces , 584 F.3d 719 ( 7 th Cir. 2009). Tha t’ s why Lo cked e c lar ed th at p u b lic-fo ru m an aly sis was “ si m pl y i na pp l i cabl e. ” 54 0 U. S
. a t 72 0 n. 3. Butthe U ni ver si ty ofW i sco nsi n i s no t pr opag at in g i ts own m essag e; i t has cr eat ed a publ i c f or um wh er e the stud ents, no t th e Uni ve r si ty, de ci de whati s to b e sa i d. And havi ng cre at ed a pu bl i c f or um , the U ni ver si ty m ust honorthe pri vate choi ce. R ea d er s w h o th in k t h at th is lin e is ov er ly for m alis tic

— se l ec ti ve fundi nga s per m i ss ibl e publ i c ch oi ce , v er su s select ive fu n d in g as im p er m iss ible re str i cti on o n pr i va te c ho i ce i n a pub l i c f o r um

— m us t r eca l ltha t th e Un i v e r s i t y o fWi s c o n s i n i t s e l fpe r s u a d e d th e S u p r e me Court to hol d that di ssa ti sfi ed students are notenti tl edN os. 09

- 1102 & 09

- 1112 11 to getthei r student- acti vi ty fees bac k, pre ci sel y b ec ause the fe e s a r e u s e d t o o pe r a t e a p ub l i c f o r um i n w hi ch students them sel ves, and not the U ni ver si ty, deci de w hat is t o b e s aid . Th e Su p re m e C ou r t g a ve its im p rim at u r in Southw orth , w i th the pro vi so that the Unive rs i ty m ust est abl i sh n eu tr al rule s a nd notshut o ut any perspect i ve that i s withi n the pr og ra m ’ s g ener aldefi ni ti on o fextr acurr i cul arstud ent a cti vi ty. J ust as ther e i s a bi g di ffer ence between a unive rs i ty as publi sher o f its o w n new spaper and as ce nsorof a student paper

— the uni ver si ty m ay ch o o se a s publ i sh erw ha t g oes i nt o the a l um nine ws b ut can not cen sor a pa p er or sel ectively de c lin e to pa y w he re students a re the pu bl i sher s, se e Ho sty v . C a rter, 41 2 F
. 3d 731 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05) ( en banc)

— so a uni versity c annot sh ap e B a d g e rC a th o l i c ’ s me s s a g e b y s e l e c t i v e l y fu n d i ng the s pe e c h i ta pp r o v e s , b utn o tthe s peechi tdi s a pprove s. Onc e it cre ate s a publi c f or um , a unive rs i ty m u st ac c ep t a ll com er s w ith inth e fo ru m ’s s c op e. T h is is w hy, i n another deci si on a ri si ng fro m the U niv er sit y o f W i sco nsi n’s fee sys tem , we hel d th at the Unive rs i ty i s no t e nt itle d to exer ci se a g ener aldi scr eti on o ver w hi ch gr oups can dr aw o n the fund s. S ee So uthwor th v
. U niversi ty of Wis consin , 307 F.3d 566 ( 7th Cir. 2002). The U ni ver si ty’ s a ssur ance th at it w i l lfund di scussi on and debate, i ncl ud i ng di scussi on with a r el i gi ous c om pon e n t, b e c a u s e i tv i e ws d i s c u s s i o n a n d d e b a t e a s a n i mport ant par t o feducati on, co up l ed w i th a d ec larati on th at th er e is j u st t o o m u c h d ev ot ion al a c tiv ity in Badg erCa th o l i c’ s pr o g r am, l ea ds us to w ond erho w the Uni ve r si ty woul d dea l wi th an appl i ca ti o n by a s tu den t gr oup com pri si ng m em ber s of the S oci etyo fFr i ends.12 N os. 09

- 1102 & 09

- 1112 Qua k er s vi ew c o m m una ls i l en ce a s r el i g i o us de vo ti o n, an d a di sc us si o n l ea di ngt o c o ns en su s as a r el i gi o us exer ci se. A dh er ents to I sl am a n d Bu dd hi sm deny that ther e i s a ny di vi de bet w een r eligi on a nd dai l y l i fe; they see el em ents ofwors h i p i n eve ry thi ng a perso n does. N ow m aybe Q ua kers, M us li m s, an d B ud d hist s sc orn th e U n ive rs ity ’s la rg es se (as B ad g e r C at h olic d id u n til 2003 ) , b uta c o ns t i t ut i o na lr ul e mus tb e g e ne r a le no ugh to ha ndl e al ls o r ts o fr el i g i o n a nd a l lchoice s bys tu den t gr oups. We d e fe r r e d a c t i o n o n th i s a p p e a lw h i l e th e S u p r e me Court had Ch rist ian Legal Societyu n d er ad vis em en t. It i s the la tes t in the sequence, beg i nning w i thHe aly v . Jam es , 4 08 U
. S. 16 9 ( 1972 ) , and exte nd i ng thr ough Wi dm ar, R o senberg er, a nd Southw orth , i n w hi ch co l l ege s o runi ve r si ties setl i m i ts o n wha t stude nto r g an i za ti o ns the y woul d r e c o g ni z e a nd fun d. Healy, wh i c h f o rb a de vi ew poi nt d i scr i m i nati on, di d not co ncer n re l i gi on, so w e hav e no t di scusse d i t. A l lth e other case s in thi s s equ e nc e c o nc e r n s t ud e ntg r o up s tha te ng a g e i n s e c t a r i an sp ee c h

. W e w an te d to se e w h et h er th e C ou rtw ou ld m od ify th e a p p ro ac h art icu lat ed inWi dm ar, R o senberg er, an d S ou t hworth . Th e Cour t l eft that a pp ro ach i n pla ce and rei ter ate d the nor m thatuni ver si ti es m ust m ake th eirr ec o g ni ti o n a nd fundi ngde ci si o ns wi th o utr eg ar d to the s pea k er ’ s view p oi nt
. The J us ti ce s di vi ded o n the questi on wh etherH ast i ngs Col l ege o ft h e L aw had sat i sf i ed the n e ut r a l i t y r e qu i r e men t, b utn o J us t i c e di s a g r e ed w i th the pro posi ti ons that “[ a] ny ac cess ba rr i erm ust be r eas onabl e a nd vi ew poi nt ne u tr al ” ( 130 S. Ct. at29 84)N os. 09

- 1102 & 09

- 1112 13 and that “ si ngl [ i ng] o ut r el i gi ous o rg ani zat ions f ordi sadvantage ous t re atm ent” ( id . at 2 98 7) is p er m iss ible on ly i fthe r e qu i r e men t s o f“str i c ts c r ut i ny ” c a n b e s a t i s fi e d. Chr i s t i an L ega l S oc ie tydescr ibed Wi dm aras a case ho l di ngtha t refusi ngt o a l l o w “r el i g i o us wor sh i p a nd di sc us si o n” i n a pub l i c f o r um i s f o rbi ddenv i ewp o i nt di sc r i m i na ti o n ( ibi d

. )
. There can be no d ou b t a fter C hris ti an Legal Socie tythatthe U ni ver si ty’ s a cti vi ty- fee fund m ust cove r Bad gerCathol i c’ s s i x conte ste d prog ra m s, i fsi m i l arpro gr am s that e spouse a s ecul ar pe r s pe c t i v e a r e r e i mbu r s e d. T h is c on c lu sio n d isp os es of th e U n ive rs ity ’s a p p ea l. B ad ge r C at h olic h as filed a c ro ss -ap p ea l se ek in g a d d iti o na lr el i ef

. I t as k ed th e di st r i ctc o ur t f o rda m ag es a nd an i njun ction; the j ud ge aw ard ed only a dec laratory j udg m en t. The r equest f o rda m ag es f o unde r s o n the Suprem e Cour t’ s deci si on that a st ate ( i ncl ud i ng a sta te offi ci alsued i n an o ffi ci alcapaci ty) i s no t a “p er son” f or the pu rpos e of §198 3, see Wi l l v. M i ch igan D epar t m e nt of S t at ePo l i ce, 4 9 1 U
. S
. 5 8 ( 1 9 8 9 ) , w h i c h me a n s th a td a mage s fro m the sta te tr eas ury ar e no t a vai l abl e under that st at u te . See , e.g., Lapides v. U niversi ty System of Georgi a , 535 U
. S. 613, 617– 18 (2002); Ar izonan s f orO f f i ci al Engl i s h v
. Ar izona , 52 0 U
. S. 43, 69 ( 1997 )
. The U ni ver si ty of W i sco nsi n i s par t o fthe sta te, W i s. S tat
. §§ 36
. 01–3 6. 62; S o u thwo rth , 5 2 9 U. S
. a t 2 2 1 , s o da mag e s c a nn o tbe a wa r d e d u n d e rfe d e r a ll a w. B ad ge r C at h o l i c s e es tw o w ay s a ro u n d th is. O n e is d am ag es from th e d efe n d a n ts in t h eir ind ivid u al c ap ac iti es. The di str i ct c ourthel d, how eve r, thatin thi s ca paci ty14 N os. 09

- 1102 & 09

- 1112 the defendants enj oy the b en efi t o fo ffi ci ali m m unity. Divi ded deci si ons such as Ch r i s t i an L ega l S oc i e ty and Lockesho w thatthi s co rnero fthe l aw cannotbe re gar ded as so cle ar th at p er so n al liab ility i s a p p ro p ria te . “If j u d ge s . . . d isa gr ee on a c on st itu tio n al q u es tio n, i t i s unf ai r to subj ect [ pu bl i c o ffi ci al s] to m oneydam age s f orpi cki ng the l osing si de ofthe controv er sy . ” Wi l s on v. La yne, 5 2 6 U. S
. 60 3 , 6 1 8 ( 1 9 9 9 )
. Ac c o r d, Pe ars on v. Call ahan , 129 S. Ct
. 808, 823 (2009 ). Bad gerCathol i c’ s o therave nue to dam age s i s s tat e l aw . A fte r the Unive rs i ty decl i ned to re i m burse so m e o f i ts expenses i n ear l i erac ad em i c y ear s, the parti es reach ed an agreem en t un d er w hich B ad g e r Ca th oli c’s re q u e s t s w o u ld be rec on sid er ed . B ad ge r C at h olic c on te nd s that the U ni ver si ty has no t k ept i ts prom i se, an d tha t i t i s en titl ed to c o m pen sa ti o n fo rb r ea cho fc o ntr ac t. H ere its pr o bl em i s th ati t di d no t g i ve the noti ces re quir ed by W i sco nsi n l aw . W i s. S tat
. §1 6. 007 (c laim s a gainst the st ate ) , §8 93. 82( 3) ( cl ai m s a gainst s tat e em plo yee s)
. Badger Cathol i c co ncedes th at i t di d not follo w th e sta te ’s p ro c ed u re s bu t con te n d s t h at n on c om p liance s ho ul d b e e xc us e d b e c a us e the s t a t e kne w what reli ef i t w an t s . W e agree w ith th e d istri ct cou rt, how ever, that W i sco nsi n does not have a d oct rine o fco nstr ucti ve com p li an ce; i t requ ires stri ct p erfo r m a nc e of allstatu tory condi ti ons to rec ov er i ng o n a c ontr act w i th the st ate
. W is. Stat. §893
. 82(2m ); R iccitelli v . B roek hu iz en , 227 W i s. 2d 100, 11 6, 59 5 N
. W
. 2d 392, 39 9 ( 1999 ) ( tr eat i ng thi s s tatute a s j ur i s di c t i o na la nd the r ef or e n o ta men ab l e t o e xc e ptions or exc us es).N os. 09

- 1102 & 09

- 1112 15 As f o rthe c ho i ce b etwee n de clar at o r y j udg m en t an d an i njun ction: th a t ’s a m atter left to the district j ud ge’s disc re ti on, se e eB a y In c. v. M ercE xc ha ng e, L.L .C
. , 547 U
. S. 388 ( 2006 ) , wh i ch w as not abused. A decl ar at or y j ud gm en t ca nno t be e nf o r ced by c o nt empt pr o ce eding s, b ut it h a s t h e s am e effect as an i njun ction in fi xin g the pa rti es’ l ega l enti tl em ents. S ee St e f f e l v. Thom ps on , 41 5 U.S
. 45 2, 466– 71 ( 1974 )
. Bad ger Cathol i c fear s that the U n iver si ty w i l lat tem pt to dance a ro und the de c lar atoryj ud gm ent, a s i th a s r e t r e a t e d fr o m i t s a s s u r a n c e t o th e S u p r e me C ou rtinSouthw orth thatthe prog ra m i s i m ple m ented wi th o utr eg ar d t o t he spe ak er s’ v i ews . A l i ti g an t who tr i es t o e va de a federal c o ur t’ s j udg m en t

— and a decl ar atory j ud gm ent i s a r ealj u d gm en t, not j ust abi t o f fri endlyadvi ce

— w i l lco m e t o re gr et i t. The probl em w i t h i ss u in g a n inju n c tio n st ra igh t o ff is th at th e d et ails r equi r ed byF ed. R. Ci v. P. 65(d )( 1) ( C) woul d b e co nsi derably m or e e l abor ate than the t er m s o fa declar ato r y j udg m en t. The di st r i ctj udg e was no t l o o k i ng f o r an o ppo r tu ni ty to ta k e o ve r m an ag ement of th e U ni ver si ty’ s a cti vi ty- fee prog ra m . I f the e ntryo fa re gul atory inj un ction ca n be avoide d by a sim p ler d eclaratory j ud gm ent, ev er yone co m es out ahead. S ee Hor nev. F l o res , 1 2 9 S
. C t
. 2 5 7 9 , 2 5 9 3

– 9 5 ( 2 0 0 9 ) ( d i s c o u r a g i n gthe use o fr egul ato ry inj uncti ons i n l i ti gat i on a gainst par ts ofst ate go ver nm ent)
. If B ad gerCathol i c’ s fear s co m e t o p as s, th en m or e re lief lies in s to re . For n o w , h o w e v er , a decl ar ato ryj ud gm ent s uffi ces. A FFI RMED16 N os. 09

- 1102 & 09

- 1112 W I L L I A MS, Cir cu i tJudg e, di sse nti ng. The Unive rs i ty ofW i sco nsi n at M adis on has cr eat ed a forum bydesi gnati ng fund s with the goa lo fenhanci ng the educati onal an d e xt r ac ur r i cul are xpe r i en ce of its s tu den ts
. The l i ne i th a s d r a wni n d e fi n i n gth e l i mi t s o fi t s f o r u m i s v i e wpo i nt ne ut r al an d co ns ti tu ti o na l l y s o und

— it n eu tr ally al l o ws e ac h s tu den t g r o up e qua la cc es s to the s tu den t fun d as l ong as the grou p i d en tifies activitie s tha t are re aso nabl y withi n th e goal s o fthe l i m i ted f or um i t has cre ate d. Because Ibel i eve the panel ’s opini on f ai l s t o re c ogni ze the Unive rs i ty’ s power t o define the purposes and goa l s o fi ts own f or um , Ir espect fully di sse nt.

I. As a n ini ti almatt er, Ib el i ev e i t i s im p or ta ntt o s eto ut a br i ef ba ck g r o und o n f o r um an aly si s an d F ree S pee ch, an d to be ab so lu te ly c lea r o n w h at th e U n ive rs ity w ill an d wi l ln ot fun d and whe r e i t dr aws the l i ne . The Co nsti tution does not guar antee an unl i m i ted fre edom f or pri vate speak er s o n go ver nm ent proper ty, and so rt s g o ve r nm en t pr o per ti es i nto thr ee c at eg o r i es t o de te r m i ne the l eve lo frev iew: tr adit i onal l y publ i c f or a, desi gnate d p u b lic for a, an d lim ite d p u b lic for a. Chr i s t i an Leg al Soc i e ty v . M ar t i nez , 130 S. Ct
. 2971, 2983 n.11 (2010); C hoo seLif

e Il l. , Inc. v. W

hite, 5 47 F.3d 85 3, 864 (7th Cir. 2008 )
. Sp ea ke r s m a y o n ly b e e x c lu d ed from a tr ad itio n ally p u b lic for u m su c h as a p a rkor a p u b lic s tr ee t if th e e x c l u sio n m ee ts st ric t s c ru tin y. C ho o se Life Ill., Inc., 547F
. 3 d a t8 6 4 ( c i t a t i o ns o mi t t e d)

. S t r i c ts c r ut i nya l so appli es w hen a gov er nm entalenti ty cre ate s a “desi gnate dN os. 09

- 1102 & 09

- 1112 17 pu bl i c f or um ” byi ntenti onal ly openi ng a nontr adit i onal sp ac e fo r p u b l i c d isc ou rs e. Id. T he third category of f ora i s the l i m i ted p u b li c f or um , i n w hi ch the gov er nm ental enti ty opens pr oper ty f orthe use by ce rt ai n gr oups or d e d i c at ed to th e d isc u ss ion of ce rt ain su bj ec ts
. Id. In th is l im it e d f orum , cont en t d iscrim ination aga inst en tire su bj ec t m at te r s i s perm issibl e when i t pr es er ve s th e pu rpos e of the f or um , but vi ew poi nt d isc ri m i nati on i s no t per m i tt ed agai nsts pee cho th er wi se wi th i n the for u m ’s lim its
. Rose nb e rge rv. Re ct or& Visit ors of theU ni v. of Va. , 5 15 U
. S. 81 9, 82 9- 30 ( 1995 )
. A stud ent a cti vi ty fee such as the o ne her e und isp utedl y c re ate s a l i m i ted p u b lic for u m , C hris ti an Legal Socie ty, 13 0 S . C t. at 2984, and not a ge nera l l y o pen one. The U ni ver si ty’ s for um fund s a cti vi ti es that enhance th e stude nt s’ e duca ti o na la nd e xt r ac ur r i cul arc ampus ex p erience s. T he pa ne l begins by stating th at th e U niversi ty m ust r ei m burse Badger Cathol ic’s acti vi ti es on th e sa m e ba si s i t r ei m bur se s o the rs tu den t g r o ups . And i t doe s, i rr espect i ve ofthe gr oup’s r elig i ous per specti ve. The pa ne li s co r r ec t th atthe U ni ve r si tyo ffer s fundi ng f o rt r a i n i n gw o r k s h o p s d u r i n gth e s c h o o ly e a ra n d s u mm erbr eak s, but Bad gerCathol i c i s a l so fre e t o acces s that fun d ing an d i t has

. For exam p le, in th e 2007-08 yea r, B ad ger C ath oli c w as reim bu rsed for e ven ts titl ed “L ead ersh ip T ra in in g G r o u p ” a n d “M ar y H ou se O ve rn igh t.” B ad ge r C at h olic is als o fre e t o a c c es s fu n d in g t h at is provi ded to student g ro ups that offerstud ent c ounsel i ng. J ust a s S ex Out Loud co uld acc ess the f or um to co unsel st u d en ts o n “h ea lth se x u alit y,” B ad ge r C at h olic co u ld a c c e s s the f o r um f o ra c t i v i t i e s tha tc o un s e l e d s t ud e nt s18 N os. 09

- 1102 & 09

- 1112 fro m a re l i gi ous per specti ve. In the 2007

- 08 y ear, Badger Cathol i c w as re i m burse d for var i ous sm al l gr ou p s s u ch as “Brea kf astCl ub, ” “ Catholic Student Un i on, ” “ N ew St u d en t W elc om e” an d “S u n d ay N igh t Se x u alit y.” The U ni ver si ty poi ntedl y doe s n ot excl ud e e vents o r activities f rom the forum becau se th ey ap p roach l ead ershi p tr ai ni n g o r counsel i ng fro m a re l i gi ous per specti ve. I n f act, Badger Cathol i c was r ei m burse d for the vas t m aj ority ofthe fun d ing it sou gh t in the relevan t year, a n a mou nto fmo ne y t ota l i ng 9% o fthe t o t a lfun d. W hat the U ni ver si ty has no t fund ed ar e s i x acti vi ti es tha tdo n o tme r e l y i nv o l v e , b uta r e m ost l y “ wo r s hi p, pros el ytiz i ng o r praye r” bec ause thos e a cti vi ti es do not fur th erthe f o r um ’s g o al s. Ourt as ki s to de te r m i ne w hether t h is l i ne i s bo th vi ew poi nt neutr aland re aso nabl e i n l i g hto fthe f o r um ’ s p urpo se o fe nha nc i ng th e stude nt s’ e duca ti o na la nd e xt r ac ur r i cul arc ampus experi ence.

II. As th e p a n e l n o t e s , th e S u p r e me C o u r t r e c e n t l y h a d t he opportunity t o re visitand sum m ar i ze i ts j uri sprudence o n the limi te d pub l i c f o r um i n Chr i s t i an Legal So ci e ty v . M a rtinez , 130 S. Ct
. 2971 (2010). I c a n notagree, how ever, w i th the panel ’ s co ncl usi on tha t “t h ere ca n be no doubt” th at C hris ti an Legal Socie ty d e c i d e s th e i s s u e h e r e an d believe i t is w orth t a k in g tim e to discu ss th e C ou rt’s appr o ac h t o a nd a ppl i ca ti o n o fthe l i m i te d pub l i c f o r um anal ysi s in a publ i c uni ver si ty set ti ng.N os. 09

- 1102 & 09

- 1112 19 I n C hris ti an Legal Socie ty, the Court d iscussed the pr ogression of the law i n th ree cases that de fi ne the curre n t lim ita tio n s o n a p u b lic u n i v e r sit y’s lim ite d foru m . In Heal y v . Jam es , 408 U
. S. 169 (1972), th e C ou rt hel d that a pu bl i c educatio nali nsti tuti on e xceeds co nsti tuti onal b o un ds wh e n i tr e str i c t s s pe e c h s i mpl y b e c a us e i tfi nd s th e v iew s e x p re ss ed by a gr ou p t o b e ab h or re n t. T h en , in Wi dm arv. Vi nc e nt, 45 4 U.S
. 26 3 ( 1981 ) , the Court re l i ed on Heal y a nd he l d tha t a uni ve r si tyc o ul d no t sing l e o ut r el i g i o us o r g an i za ti o ns f or di sa dva nt ag eo us t r ea tment as com p ar ed to the tr eat m ent o ffer ed to se cul argr oups. I n re achi ng thi s hol ding, the Court em phasi zed thata “univ er si ty’ s m i ssi on i s e du cati onaland deci si ons of thi s Courth av e nev erdeni ed a uni ver si ty’ s a uthor i ty to i m pose re aso nabl e r egul ati ons com patibl e with that m i ssi on up on the u se ofits cam pu s and f aci l i ti es. ” Wi dm ar, 45 4 U. S
. a t 26 8. F i na l l y, i n Rose nb e rge rv. Re ct o r an d Visit ors of the U niversi ty of Virginia , 51 5 U. S
. 81 9 ( 19 95 ) , the C ou rth eld th at th e s c h oo l ha d se lec te d j ou rn alis tic e ff o r t s w i th r e l i g i o u s e d i t o r i a lv i e wp o i n t s a n d i mperm i ssi bl y t r eat ed them di f f er entl y t han ot her j ournal i sti c eff or ts. Put co nc isel y, the Court’ s pos i ti on afterthe He aly, Wi d m a r, a nd R o senberg er l i ne o fcas es sta nd s forthe i dea that“a uni ver si ty gener al l y m ay not w ithh old ben efi ts from stud en t group s beca us e of th eir [] outl oo k. ” C hris ti an Legal Socie ty, 1 30 S
. Ct
. a t 2 98 8. The sta tes re tain the ri ght to prese rv e the proper ty u n d er thei r control, however, and theycan preve nt acc ess to a se lf-cr ea te d foru m , as lon g a s “ an y a c c e s s ba rrie r” is “r eas onabl e a nd vi ew poi nt neutr al

. ” Id. at29 83.20 N os. 09

- 1102 & 09

- 1112 The pa ne lpr i nc i pal l y r el ies o n Wi dm ar, b u ti ti s i mpo r t a nt t o c l a r i fy the c i r c ums t a nc e s i n whi c h tha t ca se ar os e. U n d er an E st ab lish m en t C lau se an aly sis , Wi dm ar h eld th at th er e is n o c on st itu tio n a l p ro b lem if a s c h oo l, wi tha “ g en er al l y o pen ” f o r um , a l l o ws a r el i g i o us g r o up t o u s e a r oo m on a b a s i s o pe n t o e v e r y o the rg r o up . Wi dm ar, 4 54 U. S
. a t 274- 75
. In Wi dm ar, t he Courtem phasi ze d the Uni ve r si ty ’ s cr ea ti o n of a “ g en er al l y o pen ” for u m , id. at2 67

- 68 , a nd s pec i fi ca l l y st ated tha t th e basi s fori ts deci si on was “narr ow , ” id. at 276. Because it v iew ed th e fo ru m as be in g a k i n t o a p u b lic p ar k, it appl i ed a st r i cts cr ut i ny a na l y si s i n fi ndi ngtha t the sta te’ s inter estwas not suffi ci entl y c om pel l i ng to ex cl ude r el i g i o us g r o ups wher e al lo th ers tu den t gr ou p s h a d ac c es s. Id

. at26 9- 70. The Wi dm arC ou rtd id re fer to th e u n ive rs ity -c re a t ed foru m as a “lim ite d p u b lic f o r u m ” in p as sin g, id. a t2 7 2 , b utthe Co ur tc o nfi rm ed th at it w as a c as e in vo lvin g re st ric te d ac c es s t o a p u b l ic f or um i n the next y ear, P e r ry Educ
. As s ’ n v . Pe r ry L oc al E ducators’Ass’ n , 4 60 U. S
. 3 7, 4 5- 46 , 4 9 n. 9 ( 19 83 )
. The Su p re m e C ou rt ’s fo ru m an aly s i s h as ev olv ed gre at ly si nce then, and no w , go ver nm ental enti ti es can blo ck acces s t o a l i m i ted publi c f or um as l ong as the ne utra l bar ri eri s v i ew poi nt neut ra l. C hris ti an Legal Socie ty, 13 0 S. Ct. at29 83. T h e p an el re ac h es its co n c l u s ion th at th e U n ive rs ity is engag i ng i n vi ew p oint dis cri m i nati on byst ating tha t p u re ly re ligiou s a c tiv itie s h av e “ litt le m ea n in g on th eir own ” a nd can n ot be m eani ngfully di stingui shed fro m the ca t e g o r i e s o f“ d i a l o g, d i s c u s s i o n o rd e b a t e fr o m a re l i gi ous per specti ve” fund ed by the Unive rs i ty. O p. at3.N os. 09

- 1102 & 09

- 1112 21 This concl usi on degr ades r el igion and the pr acti ce of re ligion

. See B ronx Household of Faith v . B d o f E duc. , 49 2 F. 3d 89, 10 2 (2 d C i r. 20 07) ( Calabre si, J
. , co ncurr i ng) ( “ P r a y e ra n d wo r s h i p s e r v i c e s a r e n o tr e l i g i o u s v i e wpo i nt s o n the s ubj e c t s a ddr e s s e d i n Bo y S c o ut Ri tual s o r i n Elk s Cl ub cer em oni es. W or sh ip i s a dorat i on, not ri tual ; and any othe r chara cter i zati on o fi t i s bo th pro

f o undl y de m ea ni nga nd f al se . ”)
. I fr el i g i o n, and the p ra c tic e o f on e’s relig ion, ca n b e d es c rib ed as m er ely dial og ordebate fr om a re l i gi ous per specti ve, wh at wo r kdo e s the F r e e Exer c i s e c l a us e o fthe F i r s tAmen dm en t do ? The F r ee S pee chc l au se , whi chprov ides c o nst i t ut i o na lp r o t e c t i o n o fthe r i g htt o di s c us s a nd debate vi ew s, would suffi ci entl y pr ote ct t h e r i ght o fpeopl e t o ha ve “d ial og, d iscus sion or d ebat e from a reli gious perspecti ve. ” That cannot be r i ght, and that re ligi on i s no t setapar t fro m o therf or m s o fdi al og or d isc u ssio n has n ev er be e n t h e p os itio n of th e Su p re m e C ou rt
. Se eSch. Di s t
. o f A b i n g t o n To w n s h ip v . S c h e mmp , 374 U.S
. 20 3, 21 7- 2 1 8 ( 1 9 6 3 ) ( di s c us s i ngthe i mpo r t a nc e o fthe F i r s tAmen dm en t’s Fre e E x er c ise cla u se ); Evers on v. Boar d o f Educ at i on , 3 30 U. S
. 1 , 9

- 13 ( 19 47 ) ( di sc us sing th e hi st o r y o fthe First A m en d m en t and rel igi ou s liberty in A m erica). M or eov er, ther e i s no need t o getin to a theo l ogi cal d ebat e a b ou t w ha t w orsh ip m ean s and w he th er there i s t rul y a se cular equi val ent t o w or shi p. The U ni ver si ty do es no t den y mone y t o Ba dge rCa th o l i c f o re xp ressi ng th e Catho l i c ve r si o n o f wor sh i p; i t den i es m o ne y to a ny gr oup to pract i ce i ts ver si on o fworshi p. I f, as Badger Cathol i c cl ai m ed at or alar gu m ent, a secul arf or m o f w or shi p i s possibl e ( f or exam ple , a gr ou p sel f

- i denti fi es22 N os. 09

- 1102 & 09

- 1112

as “w or shi pp i ng” the Yankee s), th en the U ni ver si ty w oul d ha ve the sam e neutr albas i s fordecl i ni ng to fund thatsp ec ific wors hi p acti vi ty. A s s houl d be cl ear b y n ow , Ih av e n o a rg u m en t a n d ag re e w h ole h ea rt ed ly w i th the S up re m e Cou rt’ s underst anding and vi ew that relig io n c an be a pe rsp ective or l en s for d iscus sing p erm iss ible to p ics
. Good Ne ws Clu b , 53 3 U.S
. at11 1 ( “[ W ] hat m att er s forp urpose s o fthe Fr ee Speech Clause i s that we c ans ee no l o gi ca ldi ffer en ce i n k i nd b etwee n the i nvocat i on o fChri sti ani ty by the Cl ub and the invocati on o fte am w or k, l oya l ty orpatr i oti sm byo theras soc i at i ons t o provi dea f

oun dat i on f

orthe i rl e s s ons .”) (em p h as is ad d ed ); R o sen b e rger, 51 5 U.S
. at83 1 ( “Rel i gi on m ay be a va st area o f inq uiry, but i t a l so provi des, as i t di d here , a s peci fi c pre m ise , a per specti ve, a sta nd poi nt fro m whi c h a v a r i e t y o fs ubj e c t s ma y b e di s c us s e d a nd c o ns i der ed. The pro hibi ted per specti ve, notthe gener alsubj ect m att er, r esul ted i n the re fusalto m ake thi rd- party paym en ts , for th e s u bj ec t d isc u ss e d w er e o th er w ise w ith in th e ap p roved category of pu bli cation s.”)
. The c o ns titut i o na lque st i o n, ho wev er, i s whethe rthe U n i ver si ty i s di sal l owing gr oups to expre ss a par ti cul ar vi ew o n a p er m i ssibl e for um to pic orwh etheri t i s di sal l owing gr oups to express any vi ew on a p ar ti cul ar t o p i c . T h e f o r me ri s u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a lv i e wp o i n td i s c r i mi na ti o n, the l at ter i s co ns ti tu ti o na l l y - per m i tt ed co nt en t disc ri m i nati on. A nd co ntent disc ri m i natio n i s what th e Uni ve r sity i s en g ag i ngin h er e byno t fundi nga ny w or shi p. The cat ego rycan be di scu ssed and co nsi dered fro m m any s tandpoint s a n d p erspecti ves, as i t a l w ays h as be en . Se e, e . g, Z el m an v. Sim m ons-Harris , 53 6 U.S
. 63 9,N os. 09

- 1102 & 09

- 1112 23 72 3 (2 00 2) (B re ye r, J., d iss en tin g) ( ob se rv in g t h at th is c o un t r y b o a s t s mor e tha n 5 5 di ffe r e nt r e l i g i o us gr ou ps w ith a sig n ifica n t n u m b er of m em b er s); Sc h. D i s t
. of A b i n g t o n To w n s h ip v . S c h e mmp , 374 U.S . 2 03 , 21 4 ( 1963 ) (“Tod ay au th oriti es li st 83 sep arate reli gious bod ies .
. . . ”). The U ni ver si ty i s no t with h old i ng be nefi ts fro m Badger Cathol i c be cause i t has a re l i gi ous perspect i ve. Badger Cathol i c would onl y hav e a cla i m o fvi ew poi nt di scr i m i nati o n i fthe Uni ve r si ty w as cho o singt o a l l o ca te fundi ng f orPre sbyt er i an o r Bap tis t o r J ew i sh r el i gi ous s er vi ces but decl i ni ng to fu n d C athol i c worshi p ser vi ces, f or exam ple , but that i s no t the ca se here

. Of c ours e, exc lu d ing purely r el i gi ous pr acti ces as a perm i ssibl e use i n the f or um h as a dispar ate i m pact o n r el i g i o us group s, as the y may be the o nl y g r o ups who w oul d w i sh to use the for um f orworshi p. But, i t i s a “basi c te net o fFi rs t Am endm ent l aw ” that di spara te i mp a c td o e s n o t, i n i t s e l f, c o n s t i t u t e v i e wp o i n td i s c r i mi na ti o n. Ch rist ian Legal So ci ety, 1 30 S
. Ct
. a t 29 71
. And f or ci ng the f or um to be open to pure ly re li gi ous a cti vi ti es woul d ha ve the c o nv er se effec t o fdi spa r at ely i m pac ting n on -re ligiou s s tu d en t g ro u p s. A s t h e p an el s t a te s, th is is w ha t the Con stitut ion forbi d s: “w ithh olding su p p ort o fr el i g i o us s pee ch w hen e qu iv alents ec ular spe ec h is fund ed i s a f or m o ff orbi dd en vi ew poi nt di scr i m i nati on .” Op
. at6- 7 ( ci ti ng R o senberg er, 5 15 U .S. at 8 28 -30 ) (em p h as is add ed). H er e, ther e i s n o eq uiv al ent s ecul arspeec h fund ed. To excl ud e pu re l y re l i gi ous acti vi ti es i s a ca teg o r i ca l, ne ut r ale xc l us i o n. The lim ited f or um her e i s m eant to furtherthe educati o na la nd e xt r ac ur r i cul are xpe r i en ce o fs tu den ts , a nd24 N os. 09

- 1102 & 09

- 1112 th e f o r um i s l i m i te d b y the am ou nt ofmone y i n the fund

. The U ni ver si ty has the disc re ti on to dec id e t hat ce r ta i n a ct i vi ti es ar e wor thfundi ngo ve ro th er s, s o l o ng a s i t s d e c i s i o n - ma k i n gc r i t e r i a i s v i e wp o i n tn e u t r a l

. As i ts funds ar e l i m i te d, i t i s f o r ce d to m ak e th es e d ecisions al lthe tim e, an d gener al l y, thes e deci si ons do not tak e on a c o n st itu tio n al d im en sio n ev en if on e g ro u p is d en ied fu n d in g. Cf. Wi dm ar, 45 4 U .S. at 2 78 -79 (Ste ve n s, J., concurr i ng) ( “[ I ] ftwo gr oups of25 stud ents re quested th e u s e o fa r o o m a ta p a r t i c u l a rt i me

— o ne to vi ew M i ckeyM ouse car too ns a n d the other to re hear se an am ate ur per f or m ance o fH am l et

— the Fi rstAm e ndment woul d no t r equi r e th atthe r o o m b e r es er ve d f o rthe g r o up tha t su bm it te d i ts a ppl i ca ti o n fi r st
. ”)
. Al th o ug h a U ni ver si ty cannot sys tem ati cal ly deny ordi scr i m i nate ag ains t an yg r o up f o ri ts v i ews , i t ca n dr aw l i ne s an d m ak e h ar d decis i ons about fund i ng. Giv en the l i m i ts and goa l s o fthe f or um , the U ni ver sity ’s deci si on t o dr aw tha t l i ne a t a ca te g o r y s ucha s pur ely r el i g i o us acti vi ty is not unconsti tuti onal

. Our ta sk i s m er el y t o dec i de whethe rtha t dec i si o n was v i ewpo i ntne ut r al, a nd i t was . As J us ti ce S te ve ns s ta te d w he n di sc us singthe re gi ste re d student or gani zati on pro gr am atH ast i ngs: Th e RS O f o r um i s no di ffe r e nt
. I t i s no t a n open c om m on s t h at H as tin gs h ap p en s t o m ain ta in
. It is a m ech an ism throu gh w hich H asting s con fers cer tain benefi ts and pu rs ues ce rt ai n aspect s o fi ts educati onalm i ssion
. H avi ng exe rci sed i ts disc re ti on to est abl i sh an RSO prog ra m , a u ni ver si ty m us t tr ea t al lpa r ti ci pan ts e ve nha nded ly. But the unive rs i ty need not re m ai n n eu tr al

— i nd eedN os. 09

- 1102 & 09

- 1112 25 i t co uld n ot re m ai n neutr al

— i n de te r m i ni ng w hi ch go al s the pro gr am wil lse rv e a nd w h i ch rules are best suited to f acili tate th ose goals. Th ere ar e no t l ega lquesti ons but pol i cy questi ons; they ar e no t for the Court but f orthe unive rs i ty to m ake

. C hrist ia n Legal Society, 1 30 S
. Ct
. a t 29 98 ( S te ve ns , J
. , c o ncu rri ng ). The p robl em , i fany, with e xcl ud i ng worshi p as a cat ego ry of s p ee c h from its foru m w ou ld lie in h ow th e U n iver si ty and i ts fund adm i ni str ato rs de c id e w hi ch acti vi ti es c on sti tute “purel y r el i gi ous a cti vi ty” and w hi ch activities use a reli giou s pers p ective to ap p roach a m ore ge n er ally ac c es sib le p u rp os e. See Fa ith C tr. C hu rch E va ng elistic M inistries v . Glo ver, 480 F.3d 891 , 918 n .18 (9th Cir. 20 07 ) ( di sc us sing the “ spe ct ero fi ne vi tabl e g o ve r nm en t e n t a n g l e me n t ” w h e n th e c o u n t y “ e n c o un t e r s s o me future appli cati on w h o i s l ess than candid” about i ts re aso ns f oracc ess i ng the f orum )
. The U ni versity m ust al l ow rel i gi ous s tudent o rg ani zati ons to tack l e i ssues and debates fro m thei r re l i gi ous pers p ecti ve, and i t r ecogni zes the diffi cul ty i n tr yi ng to d ecide which a cti vi ti es i nc l ude pr ay era nd pr o se l yti zinga nd wor sh i p a nd w hich activiti es are p ure rel igi ou s p ractice. Bu t, con trary to the panel ’ s r epeate d asse rt i on that the U ni ver si ty its e l fh as lab ele d ce rt ain ac tiv itie s a s o ff-lim its , th e U n iver si ty pla ys n o rol e in l abel i ng ac ti vi ti es. N orhas i t r efused to pay f oract i vi ti es si m plybec ause they “fea tu r e pr ay er . ” Op. a t 8. I t i ns te ad as k s the s tu den t gr oups t o s e l f

- i de nt i fy tho s e a c t i v i t i e s tha ta r e wo r s hi p, pros el yti zi ng, and pray erand then i t o n ly decl i nes t o26 N os. 09

- 1102 & 09

- 1112 fund s ucha ct i vi ti es . The r e is n o di spu te he r e th atthe onl y fund s BadgerCathol i c ar gues i t s houl d have r ecei ved ar e those i t d es cribed to the U ni ver si ty w hen i t fi rs t re quested fund i ng as i nvol vi ng worshi p, pro sel yti zi ng, and praye r. T he U ni ver si ty eve n acknow l edges that B ad ge r C at h olic co u ld d es c rib e C at h olic M as s a s “ C at h olic perspect i ves on the worl d,” and that w oul d p robabl y b e fund ed, bec ause the Unive rs i ty does not tes t or push th e g r o up whe n i t s elf

- defi ne s ana ct i vi ty
. But, whena g r o up s e l f

- i de nt i fi es an a c ta nd e l e v a t e s i ta s wo r s hi p, then the U ni ver si ty ri ghtl y r espect s that. The fund i ng i n dis pu te i s no t m oneythat i s be i ng used to p rogra m even ts for th e cam p us , f or the organ ization’s m embe r s, o rf o ro verh ead co st s o fk ee pi ngthe g r o up runni ng o r re crui ti ng new m em ber s. Thi s i s m oney f orit em s s el f

- described as i ncl ud i ng M ass , the pu rchas e and dist ributi on o frosarybo okl ets , a re tr eatdescr ibed as an Evangel i cal C athol i c Insti tute to tr ai n att endees ho w to e vang el i ze , a nd pr i va te s es si o ns wi thv i si ting pri est s a nd nuns fro m I tal y. The s e l f

- i de nt i fi c a t i o n a l s o t a k e s c a r e o fa p r o b l em that the panelse es w i th Q u akers , Bud dh i sts , and other re l i gi ons that see no l i ne between re l i gi on and dai l y life. If th e c am p u s Q u ak er s p u t in a re q u es t t o h av e t h eir w or shi p re i m burse d, the Unive rs i ty w oul d decline to fun d that requ est. If o n t he other h an d , the Q ua kers described thei r act ivit y as a di scussi on with the hopes ofco m i ng to a conse nsus ( see O p . at 1 1-1 2), th ey w ou ld ha v e a c c e s s t o the f o r um. Th i s de c i s i o n i s l e ftt o the g r o up , an d thus , r es pec ts the abi l i tyo fgrou p s t o de fi ne a nd pract i ce thei r re l i gi ons. U nd er the panel ’ s v i ew , o nce aN os. 09

- 1102 & 09

- 1112 27 pu bl i c uni ver si ty has cr eated a forum , ther e i s no way for it t o c on st itu tio n ally lim it its foru m to an yt h in g; it be co m es a g en er al l y open fo r um . I t m us t no w fund the wor sh i p a ct i vi ti es o fe ve r y g r o up, whi cho pen s th e f or um to fund i ng r equests f orthe day- to- day act i vit i es of t h o s e g ro u p s w h o b elie ve d ay -to -d ay ac tiv itie s c on st itute w or shi p. The panelh as effecti vel y c om m anded th e Uni ve r si tyt o e nl ar g e i ts f o r um t o i nc l ude the w orsh ip an d other p ure ly reli gio u s a ctiviti es of every s t ud e ntg r o up . M y b el i efthatthe cate go ryo f“purely re l i gi ous a cti vi ty” i s v i ew poi nt neutr ali s no t a c all f orr etur n to a str i ct se p ar at ion be tw ee n ch u rc h an d st at e. SeeJoh n W i t t e , Jr., That Se rpe nt i neWal l of Separat i on , 10 1 M i ch. L. Rev. 18 69, 1903 ( 2003 ) ( re m ar ki ng on the Suprem e Court shi ft fr om a “ w al lo fse parat i on” between church a nd st ate to othe r pri nci ple s o fr el i gious l iber ty such as neutra l i ty an d accom m od ations). I t in s t e ad refl ects an u nd erst an d in g t h at th e U n ive rs ity h as m ad e a c h o i c e to lim it i ts f or u m , in a c onst i tuti onal l y a cceptabl e m att er, bynot al l owing a g ro up acc ess to the fund in a way thati s no t acces sibl e t o eve rygr oup. The S up re m e Cour t has st ate d t h a t w h en ac c es s b ar rie rs are vie w p oin t n eu tr al, it is si gni fi cant that “ othe r avai l abl e a venues f orthe gr oup to exer ci se i ts Fi rs t Am endm ent r i ghts l ess en the burden cre ate d by those bar ri er s. ” C hris ti an Legal Socie ty, 130 S. Ct. at 2991
. H er e, the bar ri erdoes n ot cr eat e a ny ba rr i er f or Bad ger Cathol i c and o ther student gr oups to exer ci se th ei rF i r stAm en dm en t r i g ht s. A nd c o nt r ary t o the pan el ’ s su g g es ti o n tha t it m ayno t be abl e to b el i ev e th e U ni ver si ty w hen i t t el l s us i t wil lfu n d d i scussi ons w i th28 N os. 09

- 1102 & 09

- 1112

r el i g i o us c o m po ne nt s, Op
. at1 1, we ca n, b ec au se the U ni ver si ty does, and i t gener ousl y does so. The vast m aj or i ty ofthe ser vi ces and educati onalo pp or tuni ti es that Bad gerCathol i c, f orexam ple , pr ovi des ar e fund ed by th e U niversity, to the tun e of som e $200,000 p er year. The f o r um the Uni ve r si tyha s cr ea te d i s vi ewpo i nt ne ut r ala nd r ea so nable, a nd tha t sa ti sfi es i ts c o ns ti tu
tio n al ob liga tio n s. A s Ju st ice G in sb u rg p oin te d ou t in C hris ti an Legal Socie ty, “ [ o ] u ri n q u i r y i s s h a p e d b y the educati onalco ntext in w hi ch i t a ri ses ” a n d j ud ges sh o ul d “ r es i sts ub stitut i ngthe i ro wn no ti o ns o fs o und educati onal pol i cy f or thos e of the sch oo l autho ri ti es w hi ch theyr evi ew . ” 1 30 S. Ct. at2 98 8 ( i nter nalquotati ons and ci tat i ons om i tted )
. S he co nti nues, “S chool s, w e hav e e m phasi zed, enj oy a s i gni fi can t m eas ure of author i ty ove r the type of offi ci al l y re cogni ze d acti vi ti es i n w hi ch thei r students par ti ci pate. ” Id. at29 89. W i th defe re nce t o the s choo l’s a tte m pt to di str ibute l i m i ted funds f ro m a s tu den t bo dy r es tl es s wi ththe c o nt i nuousl y incre asing tuition and fees , i t i s r eas onabl e that th e sch o o l in this case de cid ed that i f a group self

i denti fi es acti vi ti es as w or shi p, the U ni ver si ty w i l lnot i nquir e further

. I t wil lsi m ply n ot fu nd , gi ft o r contr ibute to tha t whi chthe g r o up ha s s el f

- i den ti fi ed as b eing ou t s i de the l i mi t s o f the pu b l i c f o r um the s c hool has c r e a t e d.

III. The panel al so states that the Unive rs i ty w oul d not vi ol ate the Establ i shm en t Cl ause by fund i ng BadgerN os. 09

- 1102 & 09

- 1112 29 Cathol i c’ s purely r el i gi ous a cti vi ti es. Op. at 9. Iag re e w i th the panel that thi s i s tr ue, because a sta te can c h oo se to cr ea te an u n l i m i t e d p u b lic for u m , Ple as ant Grov eCi ty v . Su m m um , 129 S. C t. 1125 (2 009), an d th is wo u l d p a s s th e we l l

- k n o wn t e s tfr o m Le m on v. K ur tzm an , 403 U .S. 60 2 (1 97 1). G en er ally sp ea kin g, a sta te w oul d not v i ol ate the Establ i shm ent C l ause by openi ng such a fo rum bec ause the for um would have th e s ec u lar p u rp os e o f en h an c in g t h e e d u c at ion al e x p er ience of its stud ents, i t would nothave the pri m ar y e ffect of a dv a nc i ng o r i nh ib i t i ng r e l i g i o n, a nd i t wo ul d not re su lt in ex c es siv e gov er n m en t en ta n gle m en t w ith r e ligio n . SeeZelm an v. Sim m ons-Harris , 53 6 U.S . 6 39, 64 9 (20 02 ); Le m on , 4 03 U
. S. at61 2- 13. But, thi s co ncl usi on d oes not help us d ecid e w he th er or n ot the U niversity’s l i m i ted fo rum is vi ew poi nt neutraland r eas onabl e. That a st at e ca n ch o o seto fund thi s ca teg or y o fspeec h does not cr ea te a n ob l igat i on for it to d o s o. Lo ck e v. D a vey, 54 0 U
. S. 712, 719 (2004 ) (“ T he re are som e state ac tions p erm i tte d b y th e E stabl i shm ent Cl ause but notr equi re d by the F re e Exerc i se Clause

. ”)
. The L e mon te st is, aft er all, a te st ofexcl usi on

— i tde t e r mi ne s wh e the ra s t a t e a c t i on vi ol ate s the Estab l i shm ent Cl ause, a nd hol ds no pos i ti on on s tat e in ac ti o n. The Es tabl i sh m en t Cl au se c as es r efer en ce d b y the panel do nothi ng but sup p or t thi s r eadi ng. Fo r exam ple , Zel m an hol ds that “st ate s m ayal l ow schoolvo uche rs to be us ed at r el i g i o us s ch o o l s wi th o utv i o l at i ngthe Co nsti tuti on. ” Op. at9 ( em phasi s a dd ed). Thi s ho l ding does no t ha v e a ny b e a r i ng o n the i ni t i a l qu e s t i o n o fwh ether a s chooldi str i ct m ust pro vi de parent s with vo uchers.30 N os. 09

- 1102 & 09

- 1112 I t a l so does not sta nd f orthe prop os itio n that a schoo ldi str i ct which doe s pro vi de voucher s m u st al l ow voucher s t o be us ed atr el i gi ous s chool s. I ts l i m i ted hol ding sta tes thatsuch a pro gram , with s uch a cho i ce, d oe s n otvio lat e t h e E st ab lish m en t C lau se . Zel m an , 53 6 U
. S. at65 3. Locke v. D avey o ffe r s e v e n mor e s up po r tt o thi s r e a din g. 54 0 U.S
. at71 9. Lo cke r e a ffi r med tha t the Fr ee Ex er ci se Clause does noti m pose an a ffi rm ati ve obl i gati on o n the sta te to fu n d a l lr el i gi ous a cti vi ti es ofan o r g an i za tio n s i m pl y b ec au se i t ha s ch o se n t o fund ac tiv itie s o f its se c u lar co u n te rp ar ts
. Locke, 54 0 U.S
. at 721. The panelm ay cri ti ci ze the s tat e’ s deci si on t o e n g a g e in th is t yp e o f se lec tiv e fu n d in g, O p . at 9 , bu t itis a per m i ssibl e co nsti tutional choi ce. The U ni ver si ty had do ne no th i ngt o b l o ckBa dge rCa th oli c’ s o ra ny other gr oup’s r i ght t o pract i ce i ts re l i gi on. I t has chos en i ns te ad to t ak e a ne ut r al st ance o n tha t co r e co ns ti tu
ti o na lr i g ht, whi chpr es er ve s th e pur po se o fthe f o r um ( enhancin g e du cati onaland extr acurr i cul arexper i ences) wi th o utpr o vi di ng ad di ti o na lb en efi ts t o tho se who choos e t o engag e in re l i gi ous pr act ices as o pp ose d to thos e who do not

. Tho ug h the Es tabl i sh m en t C l au se mighta l l o w the U ni ver si ty to fund the ac tiv i ti es i n dis pu te i fi t cho se to n eu tr ally fu n d all su c h p u re ly re ligiou s p ra c tic es by all gr oups, i t doe s no t re quir e the U ni ver si ty to do so m er el y b ecause i t has cr eat ed a for um . A nd , ch oo sin g t o ha ve c r ea te d a f o r um f o rthe pur po se o fe nha nc i ngs tu
dents ’ e duca ti o na le xpe r i en ce s ho ul d no t o bl i g at e th eN os. 09

- 1102 & 09

- 1112 31 Uni ve r si tyt o di r ec tly fund r eli g i o us i ns ti tu ti o ns . The Uni ve r si tymai nt ains the po wera nd di sc r et i o n to c o ntr ol the purpos es and goa l s o fi ts fund and to d e s i g n a t e th e c l a s s o fs p e e c h t ha t i s w i th i n th e f o r u m. T h e bro ad cate gory o fpurel y r el i gi ous pr acti ces, with the e nd l ess num b er o f pers pecti ves w i th wh i ch to view that categ ory, i s a view p oint ne ut ral acc ess ba rri er, and to fi nd o ther w i se w oul d be t o hol d tha t uni ver si ti es ha ve no po w er t o l i m i t th ei rf o r um s to fur th erthe for u m ’s g oa ls a n d p u rp os es .
I V. T h e U n ive rs ity h as ac kn ow led ge d h ow d ifficu lt it has b een t o del i neate a l i ne be tw een fund i ng al lact i vi ti es an d m ak i ngs ur e to b e vi ewpo i ntne ut ral

. Ic o m m en d i ts efforts a nd b el i ev e th e l i ne i t ha s dr awn i s a co ns ti tu
ti onalo ne. I t has drawn this l i ne wit h a n e ye to i ts sta te const i tuti on a nd i ts educati onalm i ssi on. Our r evi ew should o n ly be o fwh etherthatl i ne cr eat es a neutr al bar ri ero r i fi t di scri m i nates bas ed on v i ew poi nt. P u re ly r e l i g i o us p r a c t i c e s , a s s e l f

- de fi ne d b y the s t ud e ntg r o up , i s ce r ta i nl y a v i ewpo i ntne ut r al, c at ego r y o fs pee ch

. To fun d e very grou p ’s varying ap p roach es to the ir core reli gious p ractices w ou ld bu rd en the forum and i ts p urp oses to th e po int of m aking it i m p ossible to adm inister. Ex cl ud in g thi s ca teg or y o fspeec h fro m the f or um i s a neutra lbar rier as i t r est ri cts Bad gerCathol i c’ s abi l i ty to a cc es s th e f o r um o n the sam e ba si s as i t r es tr i ct s th e ab i l i tyo fo th er r el i g i o us a nd no nr el i g i o us s tu den t gr oups, such as Se x Ou t Loud , J ew i sh Cu l tura l C ol l ec-32 N os. 09

- 1102 & 09

- 1112 ti ve , a nd M ul ti Cul tu r al S tu den t Coa l i ti o n t o us e th e for u m . Th e U n ive rs ity h as cr ea te d a n eu tr al b a r r i e r in p re c lu d in g t h e u se of its lim ite d for u m f or p u re ly re ligiou s p ra c tic e. T h is n eu tr a l b ar rie r is re as on ab le in l i g h to fth e f o r u m’ s e d u c a t i o n a lmi s s i o n, a n d i t, i n my vie w , i s c on st itu tio n al.

9- 1- 10