| Rumsfeld v. Forum For Academic and Institutional Rights, Inc. | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Supreme Court of the United States |
||||||
| Argued December 6, 2005 Decided March 6, 2006 |
||||||
| Full case name | Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, et al. v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, Inc., et al. | |||||
| Citations | 547 U.S. 47; 126 S. Ct. 1297; 164 L. Ed. 2d 156; 2006 U.S. LEXIS 2025; 74 U.S.L.W. 4159; 2006 WL 521237 | |||||
| Prior history | Defendant's motion to dismiss denied, 291 F. Supp. 2d 269 (D.N.J. 2003), rev'd, 390 F.3d 219 (3d Cir. 2004), cert. granted, 125 S. Ct. 1977 (2005) | |||||
| Holding | ||||||
| Because Congress could require law schools to provide equal access to military recruiters without violating the schools’ freedoms of speech and association, the Third Circuit erred in holding that the Solomon Amendment likely violates the First Amendment. Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded. | ||||||
| Court membership | ||||||
|
||||||
| Case opinions | ||||||
| Majority | Roberts, joined by Stevens, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer | |||||
| Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | ||||||
| Laws applied | ||||||
| U.S. Const. amend. I; 10 U.S.C. § 983(b)(1) (Solomon Amendment) | ||||||
Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, Inc., 547 U.S. 47 (2006), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the federal government, under the Solomon Amendment, could constitutionally withhold funding from universities if they refuse to give military recruiters access to school resources. Law schools were unwilling to allow recruiters onto campus because they viewed the military's so-called "Don't ask, don't tell" policy as being discriminatory. The Supreme Court held oral arguments on December 6, 2005, and issued a unanimous 8-0 decision March 6, 2006, finding the Solomon Amendment constitutional.
Contents |
In 1993, Congress passed the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy, codified at 10 U.S.C. § 654, which requires that the military discharge a member who (with certain exceptions):
Many law schools had policies denying campus access to recruiters from employers who did not comply with their antidiscrimination policies. Objecting to the military's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy as discriminatory, the schools refused to permit military recruiters on-campus. Congress responded by passing the Solomon Amendment, which required colleges and universities receiving Federal money to allow military recruiters onto their campuses in the same manner as recruiters for other companies. The law schools went to Federal court claiming the Solomon Amendment violated their rights to free speech and freedom of association.
In Fall 2003, Forum for the Academic & Institution Rights, Inc. (FAIR), an association of law schools and law faculty asked the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey to enjoin enforcement of the Solomon Amendment on the grounds it violated their First Amendment rights to free speech and association. The District Court ruled against FAIR. FAIR then appealed to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which found that FAIR had "demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of its First Amendment claims and that it is entitled to preliminary injunctive relief."
Secretary Rumsfeld's position was represented before the Supreme Court by the Solicitor General, Paul Clement. FAIR's oral argument was presented by FAIR lawyer E. Joshua Rosenkranz.
The Court, in a unanimous 8-0[1] opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts, held that the government could deny federal funds to schools that do not permit recruitment. The court noted that the Solomon Amendment neither denies the institutions the right to speak, nor requires them to say anything. The opinion also holds that Congress, through the "raise and support Armies" clause, could even directly force schools to allow recruiting without threatening the withholding of funds, if they so desired, and that, as a result, no question of "unconstitutional conditions" arises.