Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 292.0

529US1

Unit: $U39

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

OCTOBER TERM, 1999

217

Syllabus

BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
WISCONSIN SYSTEM v. SOUTHWORTH et al.

certiorari to the united states court of appeals for
the seventh circuit

No. 98–1189. Argued November 9, 1999—Decided March 22, 2000

Petitioner, Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System (here-
inafter University), requires students at the University’s Madison cam-
pus to pay a segregated activity fee. The fee supports various campus
services and extracurricular student activities.
In the University’s
view, such fees enhance students’ educational experience by promoting
extracurricular activities, stimulating advocacy and debate on diverse
points of view, enabling participation in campus administrative activity,
and providing opportunities to develop social skills, all consistent with
the University’s broad educational mission. Registered student organi-
zations (RSO’s) engaging in a number of diverse expressive activities
are eligible to receive a portion of the fees, which are administered by
the student government subject to the University’s approval. The par-
ties have stipulated that the process for reviewing and approving RSO
applications for funding is administered in a viewpoint-neutral fashion.
RSO’s may also obtain funding through a student referendum. Re-
spondents, present and former Madison campus students, ﬁled suit
against the University, alleging, inter alia, that the fee violates their
First Amendment rights, and that the University must grant them the
choice not to fund RSO’s that engage in political and ideological expres-
sion offensive to their personal beliefs.
In granting respondents sum-
mary judgment, the Federal District Court declared the fee program
invalid under Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Ed., 431 U. S. 209, and Keller v.
State Bar of Cal., 496 U. S. 1, and enjoined the University from using
the fees to fund any RSO engaging in political or ideological speech.
Agreeing with the District Court that this Court’s compelled speech
precedents control, the Seventh Circuit concluded that the program was
not germane to the University’s mission, did not further a vital Univer-
sity policy, and imposed too great a burden on respondents’ free speech
rights.
It added that protecting those rights was of heightened concern
following Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U. S.
819, because if the University could not discriminate in distributing the
funds, students could not be compelled to fund organizations engaging
in political and ideological speech.
It extended the District Court’s
order and enjoined the University from requiring students to pay that