## Facts

- A public university required all students to pay a mandatory “segregated activity fee” supporting campus services and extracurricular student activities.
- Registered Student Organizations (RSOs) engaged in a wide range of expressive activities, including political and ideological advocacy, and were eligible for fee-funded support.
- Most funding allocations were made through a student-government process overseen by the university; the parties stipulated this primary allocation process was viewpoint neutral.
- Some RSO funding could be awarded through a student referendum mechanism.
- Student plaintiffs objected that the mandatory fee compelled them to subsidize political and ideological speech they found offensive, violating First Amendment rights to free speech, association, and free exercise.
- The district court and the Seventh Circuit held the program unconstitutional under compelled-subsidy precedents and enjoined use of mandatory fees to fund RSOs engaged in political or ideological expression.

## Issues

1. Whether a public university may charge a mandatory student activity fee used to subsidize student organizations’ political and ideological speech consistent with the First Amendment.
2. Whether the First Amendment requires an opt-out or refund mechanism allowing dissenting students to withhold support from particular viewpoints.
3. Whether funding decisions made through a student referendum are consistent with the First Amendment requirement of viewpoint neutrality.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Seventh Circuit.
- The Court held that the First Amendment permits a public university to impose a mandatory student activity fee to fund a program facilitating extracurricular student speech, so long as the program is administered in a viewpoint-neutral manner.
- The Court declined to require an opt-out or refund right tied to a student’s disagreement with particular organizations’ viewpoints.
- The Court did not uphold the student referendum mechanism, concluding it appeared to allow fee exactions inconsistent with viewpoint neutrality, and remanded for further proceedings on that aspect.

## Legal Principles

- A public university may require students to pay activity fees that support a forum for student expression, including political and ideological speech, if the allocation system is viewpoint neutral.
- Viewpoint neutrality is the constitutional safeguard when mandatory fees are used to fund a wide range of private student speech; the university may not prefer some viewpoints over others in distributing funds.
- Compelled-subsidy limits developed for unions and mandatory state bars (including “germaneness” constraints) do not control in the same way when the university’s aim is to facilitate broad student discourse rather than to represent students’ views.
- The First Amendment does not require individualized vetoes, opt-outs, or refunds based on viewpoint disagreement when the funding program operates on viewpoint-neutral criteria.
- Funding mechanisms that award support by majority vote (such as referenda) are constitutionally suspect if they enable viewpoint discrimination against unpopular or minority views.

## Conclusion

A public university may constitutionally fund student organizations through mandatory student activity fees when allocations are made on a viewpoint-neutral basis; dissenting students are not entitled to opt out of funding particular viewpoints, and referendum-based allocations may be invalid if they compromise viewpoint neutrality.


Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Wis. Sys. v. Southworth, 529 U.S. 217 (2000)