Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 296

529US1

Unit: $U39

[09-26-01 13:21:31] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 529 U. S. 217 (2000)

221

Opinion of the Court

extracurricular student speech at a public university. Re-
spondents are a group of students at the University of
Wisconsin (hereinafter University). They brought a First
Amendment challenge to a mandatory student activity fee
imposed by petitioner Board of Regents of the University of
Wisconsin System and used in part by the University to sup-
port student organizations engaging in political or ideological
speech. Respondents object to the speech and expression
of some of the student organizations. Relying upon our
precedents which protect members of unions and bar associa-
tions from being required to pay fees used for speech the
members ﬁnd objectionable, both the District Court and the
Court of Appeals invalidated the University’s student fee
program. The University contends that its mandatory stu-
dent activity fee and the speech which it supports are appro-
priate to further its educational mission.

We reverse. The First Amendment permits a public uni-
versity to charge its students an activity fee used to fund a
program to facilitate extracurricular student speech if the
program is viewpoint neutral. We do not sustain, however,
the student referendum mechanism of the University’s pro-
gram, which appears to permit the exaction of fees in viola-
tion of the viewpoint neutrality principle. As to that aspect
of the program, we remand for further proceedings.

I

The University of Wisconsin is a public corporation of the
State of Wisconsin. See Wis. Stat. § 36.07(1) (1993–1994).
State law deﬁnes the University’s mission in broad terms:
“to develop human resources, to discover and disseminate
knowledge, to extend knowledge and its application beyond
the boundaries of its campuses and to serve and stimulate
society by developing in students heightened intellectual,
cultural and humane sensitivities . . . and a sense of purpose.”

the Rutherford Institute by John W. Whitehead and Steven H. Aden; and
for Owen Brennan Rounds et al. by Thomas H. Nelson.