## Facts

- The federal government administered the Combined Federal Campaign (CFC), an annual charitable fundraising drive in federal workplaces during working hours.
- Eligible participants were limited by executive policy to certain tax-exempt, nonprofit charities focused on providing (or supporting) direct health and welfare services.
- Participating organizations generally submitted short written statements for inclusion in campaign literature distributed to federal employees; employees could donate by payroll deduction or lump-sum to designated charities or a general fund.
- A 1982 executive amendment excluded organizations engaged in political activity or advocacy, lobbying, or litigation from participating in the CFC.
- NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund and similar legal defense and advocacy organizations were denied participation and challenged the exclusion as violating the First Amendment right to solicit charitable contributions.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the organizations and enjoined denial of their applications; the D.C. Circuit affirmed.
- The Supreme Court granted review and reversed.

## Issues

1. Whether charitable solicitation through the CFC constitutes speech protected by the First Amendment.
2. How to define and classify the relevant forum for First Amendment purposes (the federal workplace generally or the CFC program).
3. Whether excluding legal defense and advocacy organizations from the CFC is permissible under the First Amendment as a reasonable, viewpoint-neutral restriction in the relevant forum.

## Decision

- The Court held that solicitation through the CFC is protected speech.
- The relevant forum was the CFC program (not the federal workplace at large).
- The CFC was a nonpublic forum because access was selectively limited rather than opened for broad public expressive activity.
- In a nonpublic forum, the government may restrict access if the restriction is reasonable in light of the forum’s purpose and not an effort to suppress a particular viewpoint.
- Excluding organizations engaged in advocacy, lobbying, or litigation was upheld as reasonable to preserve workplace efficiency, reduce disruption, avoid the appearance of political favoritism, and maintain a focus on direct health and welfare services.
- The exclusion was treated as viewpoint neutral because it turned on the type of activity (advocacy-related functions) rather than the organizations’ specific positions.
- The Supreme Court reversed the judgment for the respondent organizations.

## Legal Principles

- Charitable solicitation, including written campaign statements linked to contributions, is speech protected by the First Amendment.
- Forum analysis focuses on the access sought and the specific government program or channel at issue, not necessarily the broader physical property where it occurs.
- A nonpublic forum is government-controlled property or a program not traditionally open to public discourse and not designated for broad expressive use; access may be limited to serve the forum’s intended purposes.
- In a nonpublic forum, restrictions on speech must be reasonable in light of the forum’s purpose and viewpoint neutral; the government need not use the least restrictive means.
- A restriction may be permissible as subject-matter or activity based even if it excludes a category of speakers, so long as it does not discriminate among viewpoints within that category.

## Conclusion

The Court upheld the federal government’s exclusion of legal defense and advocacy organizations from the CFC because the CFC is a nonpublic forum and the limits on participation were reasonable and viewpoint neutral in light of the campaign’s workplace and charitable objectives.


Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Def. & Educ. Fund, Inc., 473 U.S. 788 (1985)