## Facts

- Rutgers–Camden implemented a special student-fee mechanism allowing the New Jersey Public Interest Research Group (PIRG), an independent nonprofit, to receive funding.
- PIRG engaged in lobbying, research, and advocacy on controversial public-policy issues and operated through a statewide structure with student governance and staff.
- Under Rutgers’ policy, PIRG funding required administrative approval and passage of a campus-wide referendum meeting turnout and majority-vote conditions.
- After approval, Rutgers assessed a mandatory $3.50 PIRG fee on all students, billed with tuition and other charges, and earmarked specifically for PIRG rather than placed in a general activities pool.
- Students could seek a refund of the fee, but refunds were not automatic and were typically processed months later.
- Objecting students sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the fee compelled them to subsidize political and ideological activity contrary to their First Amendment rights.
- After an earlier appeal and remand, the district court conducted a bench trial, found PIRG had a substantial educational component, and upheld the fee; the students appealed again.

## Issues

1. Whether a state university may impose a mandatory, refundable fee requiring students to fund an independent outside organization whose primary activities are political and ideological without violating the First Amendment.
2. Whether the availability of a refund sufficiently eliminates unconstitutional compulsion in a compelled-subsidy scheme.
3. Whether asserted educational benefits constitute a compelling governmental interest justifying compelled student funding of an independent advocacy organization.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment for Rutgers.
- The court held that Rutgers’ mandatory (though refundable) PIRG fee violated objecting students’ First Amendment rights.
- The court remanded with instructions to enjoin further assessment of the PIRG fee.

## Legal Principles

- The First Amendment protects against compelled financial support for political or ideological advocacy, including compelled subsidization through government-administered fees.
- A refund or opt-out mechanism does not necessarily cure compelled-subsidy violations when payment is required upfront and objectors bear burdens to recover funds.
- When compelled funding supports an independent organization primarily engaged in political or ideological activity, the state must show a compelling interest and a narrowly tailored means; incidental educational benefits are insufficient.
- Public-forum and viewpoint-neutral administration rationales do not justify earmarking mandatory student charges to a specific, independently controlled political/advocacy organization.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit enjoined Rutgers from charging a mandatory refundable student fee earmarked for an independent advocacy group, concluding that the arrangement compelled dissenting students to subsidize ideological speech without a compelling justification.


Galda v. Rutgers, 772 F.2d 1060 (3d Cir. 1985)