Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System v. Southworth

2000-03-22

Headline: University activity fees upheld when funding is viewpoint-neutral, but student referendums that let majorities defund groups may violate neutrality, affecting how campuses fund political and ideological student groups.

Holding: The Court holds a public university may require students to pay a mandatory activity fee to fund extracurricular student speech if the funding is allocated in a viewpoint-neutral way, but student referenda that allow majority vetoes may violate that neutrality.

Real World Impact:

Allows universities to keep mandatory activity fees if funding is viewpoint neutral.
May block student referenda that let majorities defund minority viewpoints.
Affects funding for campus political and ideological student organizations.

Topics: student fees, campus speech, free speech, student referendums, university funding

Summary

Background

A group of students at the University of Wisconsin sued over a mandatory student activity fee that the school used in part to support registered student organizations (RSOs) that engage in political and ideological speech. The fee was separate from tuition and paid into state accounts; some funds go to student government grant programs (SGAF and GSSF) and some can be allocated by student referendums. Lower courts invalidated parts of the program, relying on precedents that protect union and bar members from being forced to fund objectionable speech.

Reasoning

The central question was whether a public university may require students to pay a mandatory fee that subsidizes other students’ extracurricular speech. The Court said yes, so long as the university distributes funds in a viewpoint-neutral way — treating all viewpoints equally when deciding who receives support. The Court explained that applying the old “germane” test used for unions and bar associations is impractical at a university, because universities aim to encourage a wide range of speech. The Court therefore reversed the court of appeals and held the basic fee system constitutional, but it found the student referendum part of the program potentially inconsistent with viewpoint neutrality and sent that issue back to lower courts for further review.

Real world impact

The ruling lets public universities keep mandatory activity fees that support extracurricular speech when allocation rules are viewpoint neutral. It protects minority viewpoints against majority vetoes in funding decisions if referenda undermine neutrality. The remand means the referendum practice must be examined further, so the decision about that feature is not final.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Souter (joined by Stevens and Breyer) agreed with the outcome but would not adopt a broad, inflexible viewpoint-neutrality rule; he would decide this case on the narrower facts and stipulation that the university’s grant process was viewpoint neutral.