Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 301.0

529US1

Unit: $U39

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

226

BOARD OF REGENTS OF UNIV. OF WIS. SYSTEM
v. SOUTHWORTH
Opinion of the Court

political orientation (i. e. is not a registered political group).”
Id., at 238. The same policy adds that an RSO “shall not
use [student fees] for any lobbying purposes.”
Ibid. At
one point in their brief respondents suggest that the prohibi-
tion against expenditures for “politically partisan” purposes
renders the program not viewpoint neutral. Brief for Re-
spondents 31.
In view of the fact that both parties entered
a stipulation to the contrary at the outset of this litigation,
which was again reiterated during oral argument in this
Court, we do not consider respondents’ challenge to this as-
pect of the University’s program.

The University’s Student Organization Handbook has
guidelines for regulating the conduct and activities of RSO’s.
In addition to obligating RSO’s to adhere to the fee pro-
gram’s rules and regulations, the guidelines establish proce-
dures authorizing any student to complain to the University
that an RSO is in noncompliance. An extensive investiga-
tive process is in place to evaluate and remedy violations.
The University’s policy includes a range of sanctions for non-
compliance, including probation, suspension, or termination
of RSO status.

One RSO that appears to operate in a manner distinct from
others is WISPIRG. For reasons not clear from the record,
WISPIRG receives lump-sum cash distributions from the
University. University counsel informed us that this distri-
bution reduced the GSSF portion of the fee pool. Tr. of Oral
Arg. 15. The full extent of the uses to which WISPIRG puts
its funds is unclear. We do know, however, that WISPIRG
sponsored on-campus events regarding homelessness and en-
vironmental and consumer protection issues. App. 348.
It
coordinated community food drives and educational pro-
grams and spent a portion of its activity fees for the lobbying
efforts of its parent organization and for student internships
aimed at inﬂuencing legislation.

Id., at 344, 347.

In March 1996, respondents, each of whom attended or still
attend the University’s Madison campus, ﬁled suit in the