Rosenberger v. University of Virginia
1995 United States Supreme Court case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Rosenberger v. University of Virginia?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819 (1995), was an opinion by the Supreme Court of the United States regarding whether a state university might, consistent with the First Amendment, withhold from student religious publications funding provided to similar secular student publications.[1][2] The University of Virginia provided funding to every student organization that met funding-eligibility criteria, which Wide Awake, the student religious publication, fulfilled. The University's defense claimed that denying student activity funding to the religious magazine was necessary to avoid the University's violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
Rosenberger v. University of Virginia | |
---|---|
Argued March 1, 1995 Decided June 29, 1995 | |
Full case name | Ronald W. Rosenberger, et al., Petitioners v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia, et al. |
Citations | 515 U.S. 819 (more) 115 S. Ct. 2510; 132 L. Ed. 2d 700; 1995 U.S. LEXIS 4461; 63 U.S.L.W. 4702; 95 Cal. Daily Op. Service 5005; 95 Daily Journal DAR 8512; 9 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 272 |
Case history | |
Prior | Summary judgment entered for the University by the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, 795 F. Supp. 175 (W.D. Va. 1992); affirmed, 18 F.3d 269 (4th Cir. 1994); cert. granted, 513 U.S. 959 (1994). |
Holding | |
The University's denying funds available to other student publications, but not to a publication produced from a religious viewpoint, violates the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech. The University's assertion that the exclusion was necessary to avoid violating the Establishment Clause lacked merit because the funds were apportioned neutrally to any group meeting certain criteria that requested the funds. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Kennedy, joined by Rehnquist, O'Connor, Scalia, Thomas |
Concurrence | O'Connor |
Concurrence | Thomas |
Dissent | Souter, joined by Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const. amend. I |
The Supreme Court disagreed with the University; constitutional law scholar Michael W. McConnell argued on behalf of the student religious publication, and John Calvin Jeffries argued on behalf of the University of Virginia. The decision centered on the Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, a document on religious freedom by James Madison.[1]