Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 624

524US2

Unit: $U95

[09-06-00 18:40:44] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 524 U. S. 569 (1998)

579

Opinion of the Court

ity agreed with the District Court that the NEA was com-
pelled by the adoption of § 954(d)(1) to alter its grant-making
procedures to ensure that applications are judged according
to the “decency and respect” criteria. The Chairperson, the
court reasoned, “has no discretion to ignore this obligation,
enforce only part of it, or give it a cramped construction.”
Id., at 680. Concluding that the “decency and respect” crite-
ria are not “susceptible to objective deﬁnition,” the court
held that § 954(d)(1) “gives rise to the danger of arbitrary
and discriminatory application” and is void for vagueness
under the First and Fifth Amendments.
Id., at 680–681.
In the alternative, the court ruled that § 954(d)(1) violates
the First Amendment’s prohibition on viewpoint-based re-
strictions on protected speech. Government funding of the
arts, the court explained, is both a “traditional sphere of free
expression,” Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U. S. 173, 200 (1991), and
an area in which the Government has stated its intention
to “encourage a diversity of views from private speakers,”
Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U. S.
819, 834 (1995).
100 F. 3d, at 681–682. Accordingly, ﬁnding
that § 954(d)(1) “has a speech-based restriction as its sole ra-
tionale and operative principle,” Rosenberger, supra, at 834,
and noting the NEA’s failure to articulate a compelling inter-
est for the provision, the court declared it facially invalid.
100 F. 3d, at 683.

The dissent asserted that the First Amendment protects
artists’ rights to express themselves as indecently and disre-
spectfully as they like, but does not compel the Government
to fund that speech.
Id., at 684 (opinion of Kleinfeld, J.).
The challenged provision, the dissent contended, did not pro-
hibit the NEA from funding indecent or offensive art, but
merely required the agency to consider the “decency and re-
spect” criteria in the grant selection process.
Id., at 689–
690. Moreover, according to the dissent’s reasoning, the
vagueness principles applicable to the direct regulation of
speech have no bearing on the selective award of prizes, and