## Facts

- Pennsylvania State University (Penn State) was governed by a 32-member Board of Trustees chosen through multiple selection methods.
- Five trustees served ex officio, including the university president, the Pennsylvania governor, and three cabinet members.
- Six trustees were appointed by the governor with state senate approval.
- Nine trustees were elected by the alumni association.
- Twelve trustees were elected by members of county agricultural and industrial societies.
- Penn State undergraduates could not vote in the elections for the nine alumni-elected trustees or the twelve trustees elected by agricultural and industrial societies (21 seats total).
- Undergraduate students sued state and university officials, claiming exclusion from those elections violated the Equal Protection Clause because board decisions directly affected students.

## Issues

1. Whether Penn State’s trustee-selection and governance practices constituted state action subject to the Fourteenth Amendment.
2. If so, whether Equal Protection required allowing undergraduates to vote for trustees elected by alumni and by county agricultural and industrial societies.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit held Penn State’s governance structure involved sufficient state involvement to constitute state action.
- The court rejected the claim that undergraduates had a constitutional right to vote in the alumni and agricultural/industrial-society trustee elections.
- The court declined to treat these trustee elections as general public elections for governmental office and therefore did not apply strict scrutiny.
- The court upheld the voting classification because it served important governmental objectives and was substantially related to achieving them.
- The judgment for defendants was affirmed.

## Legal Principles

- A nominally separate university may be treated as a state actor when state involvement in its operations and governance is significant enough to attribute the challenged conduct to the state.
- Not every election conducted by a state actor is a “general election” triggering heightened voting-rights scrutiny; the nature and function of the elected body matters.
- When the elected body does not perform general governmental functions comparable to typical public offices, exclusion from participation may be reviewed under a more deferential Equal Protection standard rather than strict scrutiny.
- A classification limiting participation in specialized governance elections may be upheld if it serves important governmental objectives and is substantially related to those objectives, including preserving institutional missions and longstanding stakeholder ties.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit treated Penn State as a state actor but held that Equal Protection did not require granting undergraduates voting rights in the elections for trustees chosen by alumni and county agricultural and industrial societies, because the arrangement furthered important objectives tied to the university’s land-grant mission and governance structure.


Benner v. Oswald, 592 F.2d 174 (3d Cir. 1979)