Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 311.0

529US1

Unit: $U39

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

236

BOARD OF REGENTS OF UNIV. OF WIS. SYSTEM
v. SOUTHWORTH
Souter, J., concurring in judgment

resolve this point; and the case in all events must be reexam-
ined in light of the principles we have discussed.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the
case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this
opinion.
In this Court, the parties shall bear their own
costs.

It is so ordered.

Justice Souter, with whom Justice Stevens and

Justice Breyer join, concurring in the judgment.

The majority today validates the University’s student ac-
tivity fee after recognizing a new category of First Amend-
ment interests and a new standard of viewpoint neutrality
protection.
I agree that the University’s scheme is permis-
sible, but do not believe that the Court should take the occa-
sion to impose a cast-iron viewpoint neutrality requirement
Instead, I would hold
to uphold it. See ante, at 233–234.
that the First Amendment interest claimed by the student
respondents (hereinafter Southworth) here is simply insufﬁ-
cient to merit protection by anything more than the view-
point neutrality already accorded by the University, and I
would go no further.1

The parties have stipulated that the grant scheme is ad-
ministered on a viewpoint neutral basis, and like the major-
ity I take the case on that assumption. The question before
us is thus properly cast not as whether viewpoint neutrality
is required, but whether Southworth has a claim to relief
from this speciﬁc viewpoint neutral scheme.2 Two sources
of law might be considered in answering this question.

1 I limit my examination of the case solely to the general disbursement
scheme; I agree with the majority that the referendum issue was not ade-
quately addressed in the District Court and the Court of Appeals, see
ante, at 235 and this page, and I would say nothing more on that subject.
2 Under its own reasoning, the majority need not reach the question
whether viewpoint neutrality is required to decide this case. The Univer-
sity program required viewpoint neutrality, and both parties have stipu-
lated that the funds are disbursed accordingly. Stipulation 12, App. 14–