Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, Inc., 547 U.S. 47 (2006)
Primary Holding
The Solomon Amendment does not violate the First Amendment rights of law schools because it does not compel them to express any particular message, but rather conditions federal funding on providing military recruiters equal access to students, thereby allowing the government to promote its interest in military recruitment.
In the case of Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, the Supreme Court decided that a law requiring colleges to allow military recruiters on campus did not violate the schools' free speech rights. This matters because it means that if schools want to receive federal funding, they must provide equal access to military recruiters, even if they disagree with military policies. For consumers, this case reinforces the idea that institutions cannot refuse access to recruiters based on their personal beliefs if they accept government money. This ruling is relevant for students and schools when considering recruitment policies and federal funding, as it highlights the balance between institutional values and government requirements.
AI-generated plain-language summary to help you understand this case
The Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, Inc. was an association of law schools that protested the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy in the U.S. military by restricting the access of military recruiters to their facilities and students. Under the Solomon Amendment, Congress withheld federal funding from educational institutions if any part of them restricted access to military recruiters beyond restrictions on access for other recruiters. FAIR argued that the Solomon Amendment violated the First Amendment rights of free speech and association. The lower courts differed in their responses.
Whether the Solomon Amendment, which conditions federal funding on the provision of equal access to military recruiters, violates the First Amendment rights of law schools to freedom of speech and association.
The judgment is reversed.
The law schools did not need to endorse the message being sent by the government recruiters, but the First Amendment protections of free speech and association allow the government to make a grant of funding contingent on access.
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Decision Date
- December 6, 2005
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Case Type
- landmark
- Majority Author
- Roberts
- Damages Awarded
- N/A
- Data Quality
- high
Davenport v. Washington Ed. Assn., 551 U.S. 177 (2007)
Consumer WonThe First Amendment does not require public-sector unions to obtain affirmative consent from nonmembers before using their agency fees for purposes not chargeable under Abood, thus upholding the constitutionality of Washington's law that prohibits such use without consent.
Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc., 551 U.S. 587 (2007)
Consumer LostTaxpayer standing to challenge government expenditures under the Establishment Clause is limited; general taxpayer status does not confer standing unless the expenditure is specifically authorized by Congress for a purpose that allegedly violates the Establishment Clause.
Zuni Public School Dist. No. 89 v. Department of Education, 550 U.S. 81 (2007)
Consumer LostThe statutory language of the federal Impact Aid Act permits the Secretary of Education to determine which school districts to "disregard" when calculating disparities in per-pupil expenditures by considering both the size of the district's expenditures and the number of pupils in the district.
FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., 551 U.S. 449 (2007)
Consumer WonThe First Amendment requires that political speech be protected, and as such, the regulation of speech under Section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act must not suppress genuine issue advocacy that mentions federal candidates, as it is not the "functional equivalent" of express campaign speech.