## Facts

- A student group at a public university was officially recognized after completing the university’s standard recognition process.
- The group’s stated purposes included education about homosexuality, support for gay students, and open discussion of related issues.
- The group sponsored a campus dance that occurred without reported incident, illegal activity, disruption, or official complaints.
- After public and political criticism of the dance, university officials, acting after direction from the governing board and communications from state leadership, prohibited the group from sponsoring future “social functions.”
- The group later sought approval for a play and a subsequent social event; the university permitted the play but denied the social event, continuing the ban.
- At a post-play gathering treated as a “meeting,” the group distributed publications addressing homosexuality.
- The university president then prohibited distribution of “homosexual material” on campus and warned the group it would be suspended for noncompliance; the social-function ban was ordered to be strictly enforced.
- The group sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging violations of First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
- The district court entered judgment for the group and enjoined enforcement of both bans; university officials appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a public university may prohibit a recognized student organization from sponsoring social functions based on the group’s association with homosexuality, absent evidence of illegal conduct or material disruption.
2. Whether a public university may ban distribution of publications concerning homosexuality based on moral disapproval or fear the speech will encourage homosexual behavior.
3. Whether differential restrictions imposed in response to public or political hostility violate the First Amendment rights of speech and association, as applied through the Fourteenth Amendment.

## Decision

- The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment and injunction.
- The court held the blanket prohibition on the group’s social functions violated the First Amendment where there was no showing of illegality or substantial disruption.
- The court held the ban on distributing materials about homosexuality was an impermissible restriction on protected expression.
- The court rejected justification grounded in offensiveness, moral disapproval, or political pressure as a basis for suppressing student expression and association at a public university.

## Legal Principles

- A state university, as a governmental actor, is bound by the First Amendment and may not restrict student speech or association on the basis of viewpoint or content absent a sufficient justification tied to lawful regulatory interests.
- Public hostility, moral condemnation, or anticipated negative reaction to a group’s message is not, by itself, a constitutionally adequate basis to suppress protected expression or association.
- In the absence of evidence of illegal conduct or substantial interference with university operations, prohibiting a student group’s events because of its identity or message constitutes discriminatory treatment.
- Distribution of lawful, nonobscene publications on campus is protected expression; banning materials because they address a disfavored topic is a direct restraint on speech.
- Restrictions that effectively impair a recognized group’s ability to function, when comparable groups are allowed similar activities, burden associational rights and invite heightened constitutional scrutiny.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit upheld injunctive relief against a public university’s bans on a recognized gay student organization’s social events and distribution of homosexuality-related literature, holding that viewpoint-based restrictions driven by moral disapproval or political pressure are unconstitutional absent illegality or substantial disruption.


Gay Students Org. of the Univ. of N.H. v. Bonner, 509 F.2d 652 (1st Cir. 1974)