Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263 (1981)

Facts

  • The University of Missouri–Kansas City (UMKC), a state university, made facilities generally available for activities of registered student groups.
  • Cornerstone, a registered student religious organization, had previously used university rooms for weekly meetings with permission.
  • In 1977, Cornerstone sought regular weekly use of two rooms for meetings where “worship in the form of prayer and biblical teaching” would be important.
  • UMKC denied the request under a regulation barring use of university buildings or grounds “for purposes of religious worship or religious teaching.”
  • Student members sued, alleging violations of the First Amendment, including freedom of speech and free exercise of religion.
  • The district court granted summary judgment to the university, reasoning the exclusion was justified (and required) by the Establishment Clause.
  • The Eighth Circuit reversed, holding the rule was content-based discrimination against religious speech not justified by the Establishment Clause.

Issues

  1. Whether a public university that generally opens its facilities to registered student groups may exclude a religious student group’s worship and religious teaching consistent with the Free Speech Clause.
  2. Whether the Establishment Clause requires or justifies such an exclusion from an otherwise generally open forum.

Decision

  • The Supreme Court affirmed the Eighth Circuit and held UMKC’s exclusion violated the First Amendment.
  • By making facilities generally available to student groups, UMKC created a forum generally open for student use.
  • Excluding Cornerstone based on the religious content of its speech was content-based discrimination and required strict scrutiny.
  • Although compliance with the Establishment Clause is a compelling interest, an equal-access policy allowing religious and secular groups alike would not violate the Establishment Clause.
  • Because equal access would be constitutional, the university could not justify the exclusion as necessary to avoid an establishment of religion.
  • When a public university creates a forum generally open to student groups, it may not exclude speech based on its content, including religious content, absent a regulation necessary to serve a compelling state interest and narrowly drawn to achieve that end.
  • Equal access for religious and nonreligious student groups in an open forum is a neutral policy and does not, without more, constitute unconstitutional state advancement of religion.
  • The government may not impose content-based restrictions on religious speech in a generally open forum merely to achieve a separation of church and state beyond what the Establishment Clause requires.

Conclusion

A public university that broadly opens its facilities to student groups must treat religious student speech on equal terms with secular speech; excluding worship and religious teaching from an otherwise open forum is unconstitutional content-based discrimination not justified by the Establishment Clause.