## Facts

- The University of California charged all students a mandatory registration fee used to fund student health services.
- Funded health services included abortion counseling, abortion referrals, and abortion procedures.
- Student plaintiffs opposed abortion on religious grounds and objected to paying the portion of the fee used for abortion-related services.
- Plaintiffs offered to pay all required fees except the portion they believed supported abortion-related services; the University refused partial payment and conditioned enrollment on full payment.
- Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments and parallel provisions of the California Constitution.
- During litigation, plaintiffs were permitted to deposit the disputed portion of fees into a trust fund pending resolution.

## Issues

1. Whether requiring students to pay a mandatory, uniform registration fee that finances abortion-related health services violates the free exercise of religion under the U.S. and California Constitutions.
2. Whether the constitutions require a pro rata exemption allowing religious objectors to withhold the portion of mandatory fees used for objectionable services.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed judgment for the Regents.
- The court held the mandatory fee requirement did not impose a constitutionally cognizable burden on plaintiffs’ religious exercise.
- The court rejected a constitutional requirement that the University offer a pro rata exemption from generally applicable mandatory fees.
- The court accepted that, once collected, mandatory fees became University funds controlled by the Regents, who have primary authority over University fiscal and service decisions.

## Legal Principles

- A generally applicable, religion-neutral mandatory fee used to fund a broad set of university services does not violate free-exercise rights merely because some funded services conflict with a student’s religious beliefs.
- Indirect, attenuated financial support through a general fee—without compelling the objector to personally engage in the disputed conduct—does not constitute unconstitutional coercion of religious practice.
- Once mandatory fees are collected, the funds are institutional funds; individual payors do not retain control over specific expenditures for free-exercise purposes.
- Neither the federal nor state constitution requires a public university to create individualized, pro rata opt-outs from mandatory fee programs based on religious objections.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the University’s uniform mandatory fee system, concluding that funding abortion-related health services through generally collected student fees did not infringe religious free-exercise rights and did not require a religiously based pro rata exemption.


Erzinger v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 137 Cal. App. 3d 389, 187 Cal. Rptr. 164 (Ct. App. 1982)