Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 302.0

529US1

Unit: $U39

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

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

227

Opinion of the Court

United States District Court for the Western District of Wis-
consin against members of the board of regents. Respond-
ents alleged, inter alia, that imposition of the segregated fee
violated their rights of free speech, free association, and free
exercise under the First Amendment. They contended the
University must grant them the choice not to fund those
RSO’s that engage in political and ideological expression of-
fensive to their personal beliefs. Respondents requested
both injunctive and declaratory relief. On cross-motions for
summary judgment, the District Court ruled in their favor,
declaring the University’s segregated fee program invalid
under Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Ed., 431 U. S. 209 (1977), and
Keller v. State Bar of Cal., 496 U. S. 1 (1990). The District
Court decided the fee program compelled students “to sup-
port political and ideological activity with which they dis-
agree” in violation of respondents’ First Amendment rights
to freedom of speech and association. App. to Pet. for Cert.
98a. The court did not reach respondents’ free exercise
claim. The District Court’s order enjoined the board of re-
gents from using segregated fees to fund any RSO engaging
in political or ideological speech.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Cir-
cuit afﬁrmed in part, reversed in part, and vacated in part.
Southworth v. Grebe, 151 F. 3d 717 (1998). As the District
Court had done, the Court of Appeals found our compelled
speech precedents controlling. After examining the Univer-
sity’s fee program under the three-part test outlined in Lehn-
ert v. Ferris Faculty Assn., 500 U. S. 507 (1991), it concluded
that the program was not germane to the University’s mis-
sion, did not further a vital policy of the University, and im-
posed too much of a burden on respondents’ free speech
“[L]ike the objecting union members in Abood,” the
rights.
Court of Appeals reasoned, the students here have a First
Amendment interest in not being compelled to contribute to
an organization whose expressive activities conﬂict with
It added that
their own personal beliefs. 151 F. 3d, at 731.