Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 317

529US1

Unit: $U39

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

242

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

And we have recognized the same principle outside of the
In PruneYard
sphere of government spending as well.
Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U. S. 74 (1980), we rejected a
shopping mall owner’s blanket claim that “a private property
owner has a First Amendment right not to be forced by the
State to use his property as a forum for the speech of oth-
ers.”
Id., at 85 (footnote omitted). We then upheld the
right of individuals to exercise state-protected rights of ex-
pression on a shopping mall owner’s property, noting among
other things that there was no danger that such a require-
ment would “ ‘dampe[n] the vigor and limi[t] the variety of
public debate.’ ”
Id., at 87, 88 (quoting Miami Herald Pub-
lishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U. S. 241, 257 (1974) (alteration
in original)). The same consideration goes against the fee
payer’s speech objection to the scheme here.

Third, our prior compelled speech and compelled funding
cases are distinguishable on the basis of the legitimacy of
governmental interest. No one disputes the University’s as-
sertion that some educational value is derived from the ac-
tivities supported by the fee, ante, at 232–233; supra, at 237,
whereas there was no governmental interest in mandating
union or bar association support beyond supporting the col-
lective bargaining and professional regulatory functions of
those organizations, see Abood, supra, at 223–224; Keller,
supra, at 13–14. Nor was there any legitimate governmen-
tal interest in requiring the publication or afﬁrmation of
propositions with which the bearer or speaker did not
agree.10 Wooley, 430 U. S., at 716–717; Barnette, 319 U. S.,
at 640–642.

Finally, the weakness of Southworth’s claim is underscored
by its setting within a university, whose students are in-
evitably required to support the expression of personally

10 The legitimacy of the governmental objective here distinguishes the
case in my view from one brought by a university student who objected
to supporting religious evangelism. See Rosenberger, supra, at 868–871
(Souter, J., dissenting).