## Facts

- Students at a state-supported university formed Gay Student Services (GSS) to support gay and lesbian students and provide education and discussion.
- GSS sought official recognition under the university’s student-organization system, which conferred access to meeting space, campus media, bulletin boards, and inclusion in official listings.
- The university denied recognition, asserting (at various times) a policy against recognizing primarily social/fraternal groups, and citing moral and public-policy concerns tied to then-criminalized homosexual conduct under state law.
- GSS alleged the stated policy rationales were inconsistently applied because other similarly social or fraternal student groups were recognized.
- GSS and individual students sued, alleging violations of First Amendment speech and association rights and raising equal protection concerns.

## Issues

1. Whether the university’s student-organization recognition system created a forum for student expression such that denial of recognition burdened protected speech and association.
2. Whether the denial of recognition was unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination rather than a content-neutral application of generally applicable criteria.
3. Whether the Eleventh Amendment barred an award of monetary damages against the university and officials sued in their official capacities.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit reversed the judgment for the university on the First Amendment claims and required recognition of GSS on the same terms as other student organizations.
- The court held the university had created a forum for student expression through its recognition system and related access to facilities and communications channels.
- The court concluded the district court’s findings that the denial was not content-based and that no relevant forum existed were clearly erroneous.
- The court rejected justifications grounded in morality, perceived endorsement, or speculative encouragement of unlawful conduct where the organization’s stated purposes were educational and supportive rather than incitement to illegal acts.
- The court affirmed that the Eleventh Amendment barred monetary damages against the university and officials in their official capacities, while allowing declaratory and injunctive relief.

## Legal Principles

- When a public university establishes a student-organization recognition system with meaningful access to facilities and communication channels, it creates a forum for student speech and association.
- In such a forum, the university may apply reasonable, content-neutral rules, but it may not exclude a student organization based on hostility to its viewpoint or the subject matter of its expression.
- Denial of recognition that selectively burdens a disfavored viewpoint constitutes impermissible viewpoint discrimination under the First Amendment.
- Sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment bars monetary damages against a state university and officials sued in their official capacities, though prospective declaratory and injunctive relief may be available to remedy constitutional violations.

## Conclusion

The court held that a public university that provides recognized student organizations access to campus resources for expression cannot deny recognition to a gay student organization because of disagreement with its viewpoint, while monetary damages remained unavailable due to Eleventh Amendment immunity.


Gay Student Servs. v. Tex. A&M Univ., 737 F.2d 1317 (5th Cir. 1984)