Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of the University of Virginia
Docket: No. 92-1736
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit; March 13, 1994; Federal Appellate Court
A state university's refusal to allocate funds from its student activities fund (SAF) for a student-run religious publication does not violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The University of Virginia imposes a mandatory student activities fee, the proceeds of which support various student organizations and activities. To access SAF funds, student groups must achieve 'Contracted Independent Organization' (CIO) status, which requires a majority student membership, student leadership, an updated constitution, and an anti-discrimination disclaimer. Although CIOs gain access to university facilities and can apply for funding, the university makes clear that its support does not imply endorsement or control over these organizations. The ultimate decision-making authority over SAF allocations lies with the Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia, who delegate funding decisions to the Student Council. Denial of funding can be appealed through multiple layers of university governance, adhering to guidelines that align with educational purposes and legal standards. Certain student organizations, including religious and political groups, are specifically prohibited from receiving SAF funds, along with categories of expenditures such as honoraria, religious activities, social events, philanthropic contributions, and political activities.
CIO status allows student organizations to receive funding based on three criteria: group size, University-wide benefits from activities, and financial self-sufficiency. Following approval, organizations submit expense vouchers to the SAF, which pays creditors directly for fundable expenses. In the 1990-91 academic year, 343 organizations qualified as CIOs, with 135 applying for funding and 118 receiving it, including various student publications and associations.
Wide Awake Productions, founded by Ronald W. Rosenberger and others, is an unincorporated association aiming to publish a magazine for philosophical and religious expression, specifically to promote Christian viewpoints. The nonprofit journal, titled "Wide Awake: A Christian Perspective at the University of Virginia," was created in response to a lack of Christian expression in existing student publications. Open to all University students regardless of background, Wide Awake has published three issues, distributing approximately 5,000 copies each. The journal's mission is to encourage Christians to embody their faith and provoke discussions about personal relationships with Jesus Christ. Its articles cover topics such as racism, crisis pregnancy, the Church’s response to homosexuality, and personal experiences in missionary work, all framed within a Christian perspective.
Plaintiffs acknowledge that their publication, Wide Awake, constitutes a 'religious activity' as defined by SAF guidelines, prominently featuring Christian themes throughout its content. Approximately eighty percent of the advertising in its September/October 1991 issue was related to Christian churches or businesses. The journal prominently displays Christian symbols, including a Cross on each page. Wide Awake Productions, recognized as a CIO, enjoys access to University facilities and resources, such as computers and printers for manuscript preparation.
In January 1991, Ronald W. Rosenberger applied for $5,862 in SAF funding for publishing costs, which was denied by the Appropriations Committee on February 26, citing the publication as a religious activity. The Committee based this decision on the editorial content, which emphasized Christian expression. Wide Awake Productions appealed this denial to the full Student Council, which upheld the decision without comment. Subsequently, the Student Activities Committee also affirmed the funding denial on April 16, 1991, reiterating that Wide Awake was a religious activity. This decision marked the exhaustion of all internal appeals regarding SAF funding for the publication, while confirming that Wide Awake Productions can still distribute its magazine and utilize University facilities as a CIO.
On July 11, 1991, Wide Awake Productions filed a lawsuit against the Rector and Visitors and Dean Stump under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, challenging the Student Activities Fund (SAF) guidelines that excluded 'religious activities,' including their publication, from funding eligibility. The plaintiffs based their claims on various constitutional provisions.
Count One argued that the guidelines violated the Free Speech and Press Clause of the First Amendment and the Virginia Constitution by denying funding based solely on the content and viewpoint of their speech. It also claimed the guidelines were unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. Count Two asserted that the denial of SAF funding for 'religious activities' breached the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and relevant Virginia laws by discriminating against the religious content of their expression and beliefs. It also alleged a failure to accommodate plaintiffs' religious beliefs.
Count Three contended that the guidelines' prohibition against funding 'religious activities' violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Virginia Constitution by discriminating against Wide Awake Productions based on the content of their speech and association, without a compelling state interest justifying such discrimination.
The plaintiffs sought: (1) a declaratory judgment that the guidelines violated their constitutional rights; (2) a permanent injunction against enforcing the guidelines concerning Wide Awake Productions; (3) compensatory damages of at least $5,862 for denied SAF funds; and (4) an award for reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
Both parties agreed on the absence of material facts and sought summary judgment. The district court ruled in favor of the Rector and Visitors, determining that the Student Activities Fund (SAF) was not a 'limited public forum' and that the funding guidelines did not discriminate against Wide Awake Productions' speech. The court concluded that denying funding did not infringe on the plaintiffs’ free exercise of religion and that the equal protection challenge failed due to lack of evidence showing discriminatory intent by the Rector and Visitors. Although the court did not examine the plaintiffs' claims regarding violations of the Virginia Constitution and the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom, it found that funding restrictions for 'religious activities' did not impose an impermissible burden on the plaintiffs’ rights under state law.
The appeal raises issues of constitutional violations under federal law, specifically the U.S. Constitution, as the parties did not pursue the state law claims in their briefs or at oral arguments, resulting in their abandonment. The appellate inquiry is limited to the plaintiffs' assertions that the guidelines prohibiting SAF funding for 'religious activities' breach the Free Speech and Press Clause of the First Amendment by depriving them of government benefits based on the content and viewpoint of their speech.
Plaintiffs contend that funding restrictions imposed by the guidelines discriminate against them under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. They argue these restrictions unjustly deny them benefits granted to other campus organizations (CIOs) engaging in religious speech and activities, asserting that the restrictions lack a compelling state interest and are not narrowly tailored. The document examines two claims. First, plaintiffs argue that the prohibition of Student Activities Fund (SAF) funding for 'religious activities' infringes upon their rights under the Free Speech and Press Clause of the First Amendment by denying benefits based on the content and viewpoint of their speech. The analysis emphasizes the constitutional interpretation principles, highlighting that the Bill of Rights serves as a safeguard against government infringement on fundamental liberties. The Free Speech and Press Clause specifically prohibits Congress from enacting laws that restrict individuals' rights to express their views. However, the amendment does not guarantee the means of expression, such as funding or materials. The document asserts that while the plaintiffs retain the right to express religious views freely, they do not claim that the Rector and Visitors have prevented them from doing so on campus, and Wide Awake Productions is recognized as a CIO with full benefits.
Members of Wide Awake Productions have comparable access to University meeting rooms and facilities as other registered student organizations, along with generous use of University resources, including computer terminals and printers. They have distributed thousands of copies of their publication on campus with the University's consent. The plaintiffs cannot argue that the Rector and Visitors imposed an unconstitutional prior restraint on their speech by denying equal access to University facilities, nor do they claim that the University is obligated to financially support their speech. The University, like any property owner, has the right to decide how to allocate its resources and is not required to fund extracurricular activities.
However, the plaintiffs argue that the guidelines established by the Rector and Visitors for distributing funds must not discriminate based on the content or viewpoint of the speech. They claim that the denial of a Student Activity Fund (SAF) grant, due to the characterization of their publication as a 'religious activity,' violates the First Amendment by imposing viewpoint discrimination. This discrimination, they contend, constitutes a prior restraint on their ability to receive government funding and should be deemed unconstitutional. The document emphasizes that the Supreme Court has rejected the idea that government benefits can be conditioned on surrendering constitutional rights, asserting that such conditions are typically invalid as they penalize the exercise of free speech.
The legal inquiry revolves around whether the guidelines prohibiting funding for 'religious activities' impose an unconstitutional condition that infringes on the plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights to religious expression. This inquiry consists of two parts.
First, it confirms that the publication of religious speech in the journal Wide Awake is protected under the Speech and Press Clause, as discussions of religion qualify as protected speech. The guidelines’ definition of 'religious activities' includes speech that promotes or manifests belief in a deity, indicating that such publication is an active pursuit.
Second, it assesses whether the Rector and Visitors effectively require Wide Awake Productions to cease publishing religious content to qualify for Student Activities Fund (SAF) funding. The conclusion is affirmative; the guidelines obligate the Student Council to deny funding for religious expression, preventing it from competing with other forms of speech. This constitutes a prior restraint on funding religious expression.
While student organizations do not have an inherent right to funding, when funds are available, distribution must be viewpoint-neutral. The Rector and Visitors' restrictions condition funding on the abandonment of constitutionally protected religious expression, resulting in discrimination based on content. The guidelines face scrutiny as the Rector and Visitors claim a compelling interest in maintaining church-state separation, derived from the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. However, to justify content-based funding restrictions, the state must demonstrate that the regulation is necessary to serve a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that goal.
Offering Wide Awake Productions an equal opportunity to compete for Student Activity Fee (SAF) funds does not inherently conflict with the Establishment Clause. The argument against such funding, based on the potential benefit to religious promotion, is flawed since government support for public services (like police and fire) to churches does not violate the Establishment Clause. This perspective aligns with Supreme Court precedents that allow government aid to parochial schools, as illustrated in Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School District.
To evaluate the Rector and Visitors' justification for prohibiting SAF funds for “religious activities,” an analysis of the guidelines under the Lemon test is necessary. The Lemon test requires that a governmental policy must have a secular purpose, its primary effect must neither advance nor inhibit religion, and it must not foster excessive government entanglement with religion. The first prong of this test examines the purpose behind the SAF funding guidelines. Although the guidelines stem from undocumented deliberations, they include a “Student Activity Fee Statement of Purpose,” which states that the fee supports student organizations related to the University’s educational mission. The guidelines explicitly prohibit funding for “religious activities,” asserting that these do not align with the educational purpose of the University. This indicates that the Rector and Visitors aimed to ensure compliance with the University’s educational function by denying SAF funding for religious activities.
The plaintiffs argue that since the University includes religious studies in its academic curriculum, it should not restrict funding to the student organization Wide Awake based on the nature of its discussions. However, the court disagrees, asserting that the inclusion of religious studies does not equate to a justification for using University funds to support religious activities, which may violate the Establishment Clause. The University’s educational mission, as articulated by Thomas Jefferson, encompasses a variety of subjects, including religion, but the Rector and Visitors maintain the authority to impose funding restrictions to uphold a secular purpose and avoid establishing religion. The funding guidelines of the Student Activities Fund (SAF) are deemed to be motivated by a legitimate secular purpose, specifically the advancement of the University’s educational objectives. The court finds no evidence that the Rector and Visitors’ intentions are insincere or that the guidelines are a facade for an impermissible purpose. Consequently, the prohibition against funding religious activities is not seen as violating the Establishment Clause. While the guidelines restrict access to SAF for religious speech, the court distinguishes between this restriction and the broader question of whether such limitations inhibit or advance religion.
The Rector and Visitors have not restricted the publication of Wide Awake and have provided equal access to University resources for its production, supporting its religious mission. The University allows distribution of Wide Awake on its premises without limitations. Although the University does not directly fund the journal, its policies do not inhibit religion as they provide ample opportunities for religious expression and engagement within the University community. However, funding Wide Awake with public money would be seen as state sponsorship of religious belief and could violate the Establishment Clause. The journal aims to encourage Christians and proselytize non-Christians, making public funding a potential violation of constitutional separation of church and state. The case highlights concerns about excessive government entanglement with religion, reflecting historical worries about the effects of such entanglement on political systems and individual liberties. Ultimately, granting funding to Wide Awake would advance its religious agenda, thus breaching the principles outlined in the Lemon test regarding government involvement in religious activities.
The indirect and incidental provision of government benefits to religious institutions is not sufficient to invalidate state policies, as established in various Supreme Court cases. The Court has upheld the provision of direct non-monetary benefits to religious groups when the government creates open forums accessible to all similar organizations. For instance, in Widmar v. Vincent, the Court ruled that a state university could not deny equal access to facilities for religious activities based on the content of the group's speech. However, direct monetary support for religious organizations presents distinct challenges under the Establishment Clause, necessitating a stance of neutrality towards religion.
In this context, providing Student Activity Fund (SAF) money to support the publication of "Wide Awake," a journal promoting a Christian mission, could be seen as advancing religious objectives and potentially fostering political divisiveness. The Supreme Court has recognized that competition among religious sects for governmental support can lead to civil unrest. The funding of Wide Awake could signal the University’s endorsement of Christian values, thereby excessively entangling the institution with religious promotion. The Rector and Visitors have identified a compelling state interest in complying with the Establishment Clause, justifying their decision to exclude Wide Awake Productions from accessing SAF funds to avoid such entanglement.
The court evaluates whether the funding guidelines' ban on “religious activities” is sufficiently narrow to withstand strict judicial scrutiny. It references the Supreme Court's standard that a government policy is “narrowly tailored” if it directly addresses the specific issue it aims to remedy. The plaintiffs argue that the ban significantly hampers student organizations' religious expression, but the court finds that the university's prohibition is necessary to adhere to the Establishment Clause, which restricts government support of religious activities.
The guidelines are deemed not "substantially broader than necessary" to achieve the Rector and Visitors' constitutional goals, thus meeting the narrow tailoring requirement. While the court acknowledges that this prohibition may impose a presumptively unconstitutional condition on access to government benefits in violation of the Free Speech and Press Clause, it recognizes the compelling state interests in preventing the advancement of religion and excessive entanglement with religion at the University of Virginia. Consequently, the funding restriction is upheld as constitutionally valid under the Speech and Press Clause.
The district court previously found that the funding guidelines do not violate the Free Speech and Press Clause by excluding certain groups from the "limited public forum" represented by Student Activities Funding (SAF). The court agrees that the Rector and Visitors intended SAF to be a nonpublic forum by selectively awarding funds to organizations that align with the university's secular educational mission, although it supports this conclusion based on a different rationale regarding content-based discrimination in government benefits.
Public forum cases have typically interpreted "forum" in a literal sense, focusing on physical spaces and not extending the definition to encompass cases already under First Amendment scrutiny. The plaintiffs argue that the guidelines prohibiting funding for "religious activities" violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in two ways: (1) by denying them benefits available to other campus organizations involved in religious speech and activities, and (2) by lacking a compelling state interest and being improperly tailored to the interests of the Rector and Visitors. The Equal Protection Clause ensures that no state shall deny any person equal protection under the law.
The plaintiffs claim that the Rector and Visitors discriminated against them by providing funding to other groups, such as the Muslim Students Association and the Jewish Law Students Association, while denying funds to Wide Awake Productions. To prove an equal protection violation, plaintiffs must demonstrate both discriminatory intent and disparate impact. The district court found no evidence of discriminatory intent in the funding denial, a conclusion not challenged by the plaintiffs on appeal, which limits the appellate court's jurisdiction to review the equal protection claim.
Furthermore, the court previously determined that the refusal to fund "religious activities" serves the compelling state interest of preventing excessive entanglement with religion, a rationale that applies across constitutional contexts, including the Equal Protection Clause. As no prima facie violation of equal protection rights exists, the court affirms the district court's judgment. The case pertains specifically to the University's guidelines defining "religious organization" and "religious activity," with the former defined as an organization devoted to a deity or ultimate reality, and the latter as activities promoting specific beliefs in such entities.
The document lists various publications, including "Wide Awake," which is characterized as a periodical presenting articles from a Christian perspective. The editors prefer the term "perspective" over "journal," emphasizing a non-partisan approach that invites exploration rather than definitive conclusions. The usage of "journal" in the document is intended as a generic term, defined as a periodical of interest to a specific audience. "Wide Awake" is described as a collection of articles that engage with issues pertinent to both general and Christian audiences. Notably, one article, "The Economics of Compassion," critiques socialism and supports free market principles based on Pope John Paul II's encyclical. The magazine also includes community notices, such as church service times and events. The decision letter from the Appropriations Committee, signed by the Student Council's Vice President for Student Organizations, is mentioned in the context of the document. Additionally, the excerpt references 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which outlines liability for deprivation of rights under state authority.
Article I of the Virginia Constitution includes a Declaration of Rights, affirming freedoms of speech and religion. Specifically, Article I, Section 12 guarantees citizens the right to freely express their sentiments, while Section 16 ensures equal religious exercise without government favoritism toward any sect. The Virginia Act for Religious Freedom prohibits compelling individuals to support any religious practice and protects their civil rights regardless of religious beliefs. Article I, Section 11 prohibits government discrimination based on religious conviction, race, color, sex, or national origin, with an exception for sex separation. Additionally, 42 U.S.C. § 1988 allows courts to award attorney’s fees to prevailing parties in certain civil rights cases. In the case of Rosenberger v. Rector, Visitors of the University of Virginia, the court upheld that funding restrictions on religious activities did not infringe upon constitutional rights or the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom. The court granted summary judgment to the University, determining the denial of funding to Wide Awake Productions did not unconstitutionally burden the plaintiffs' religious exercise. The plaintiffs did not contest this ruling on appeal, resulting in abandonment of this issue along with their state-law claims.
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects First Amendment liberties, including freedoms of speech, press, religion, and non-establishment of religion, from state infringement. The guidelines distinguish between "religious organizations," which cannot receive Student Activity Fund (SAF) money, and "religious activities," which also cannot be subsidized by SAF funds. This results in a complete prohibition of SAF funding for any religious endeavors by Recognized Student Organizations (CIOs) at the University. The Student Council's Appropriations Committee denied funding to Wide Awake Productions, categorizing its publication as a "religious activity," not because it was deemed a "religious organization." The plaintiffs assert that Wide Awake Productions was eligible for SAF funding due to its CIO status, while the Rector and Visitors argue it was ineligible due to its religious purposes. The court rejects the Rector and Visitors' claim of unlimited discretion over funding eligibility, emphasizing their legal obligation to uphold the First Amendment. It states that once SAF funds are available, they must be distributed in a viewpoint-neutral manner unless a compelling state interest is demonstrated. The document does not address other exclusions from SAF funding, such as for fraternities, sororities, or social events, as they are not relevant to this case.
The Rector and Visitors reference several Supreme Court decisions to support their position, but none are deemed relevant to the current case. Specifically, Rust v. Sullivan (1991) is highlighted, where the Court ruled that restrictions on Title X funding recipients did not constitute a prior restraint on abortion counseling, as the focus was on how already-allocated funds could be used rather than access to government benefits. Chief Justice Rehnquist noted that the government was not denying benefits but rather ensuring public funds were spent for authorized purposes.
The discussion touches on the controversial nature of the Lemon test in Establishment Clause jurisprudence, with Justices expressing a desire to reconsider or refine it. Justice Scalia criticized the Lemon test, suggesting it is outdated, while others, like Justice O'Connor, called for a reexamination. Despite these criticisms, the Lemon test remains in effect and is the established standard for deciding such cases, as emphasized by Justice Powell's acknowledgment of its coherence. The court is obligated to adhere to Supreme Court precedents, regardless of dissenting opinions.
Lemon v. Kurtzman remains the governing precedent for evaluating Establishment Clause issues, as it has never been overruled or modified. The argument presented by the plaintiffs, referencing Texas Monthly, Inc. v. Bullock, is rejected, as Texas Monthly's context—concerning a state sales tax exemption for religious periodicals—does not directly apply to the current case involving government subsidies. The Court in Texas Monthly determined that the exemption failed to meet Establishment Clause standards due to insufficient breadth, which supports the argument that the SAF guidelines, prohibiting religious activity, impose an unconstitutional prior restraint on receiving government benefits.
Justice Brennan's opinion emphasizes that directing government subsidies exclusively to religious organizations conveys a message of endorsement to the wider community, particularly when the subsidy promotes religious teachings. In this case, funding for the publication "Wide Awake," which aims to promote a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, would likely convey such an endorsement, raising constitutional concerns. The analysis must still test the asserted state interest in compliance with the Establishment Clause, as the case involves direct government funding for religious expression, differing from the tax exemption scenario in Texas Monthly.
Additionally, the Code of Virginia outlines the branches of learning to be taught at the University, emphasizing a broad educational scope, yet contrasting views from dissenting opinions, such as Justice Rehnquist's critique of earlier Supreme Court interpretations regarding religious freedom and the First Amendment, remain noted.
