 | This articlerelies excessively onreferences toprimary sources. Please improve this article by addingsecondary or tertiary sources. Find sources: "Widmar v. Vincent" – news ·newspapers ·books ·scholar ·JSTOR(October 2019) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
| Widmar v. Vincent | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued October 6, 1981 Decided December 8, 1981 | |
| Full case name | Gary E. Widmar v. Clark Vincent |
| Citations | 454U.S.263 (more) 102 S. Ct. 269; 70L. Ed. 2d 440 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Chess v. Widmar, 480F. Supp.907 (W.D. Mo. 1979); reversed, 635F.2d1310 (8th Cir. 1980);cert. granted,450 U.S. 909 (1981). |
| Holding | |
| When a public university opens its facilities to student meetings, it creates a public forum; given no other justification, the university may not exclude religious groups based on the content of its members’ speech. Because the University of Missouri denied this space to Cornerstone, an avowedly Christian organization, it violated both Cornerstone's 14th Amendment equal protection rights, as well as its guarantee of free speech rights found in theFirst Amendment. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Powell, joined by Burger, Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, Rehnquist, O'Connor |
| Concurrence | Stevens |
| Dissent | White |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amends. I,XIV; | |
Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263 (1981), held that when the U.S. government provides an "open forum," it may not discriminate against speech that takes place within that forum on the basis of the viewpoint it expresses—in this case, against religious speech engaged in by anevangelical Christian organization.[1]
Cornerstone, a Christian organization for students of theUniversity of Missouri–Kansas City, had for many years, with University permission, used classrooms for its weekly meetings. In 1977 the group sought to use additional room for religious services, outside of instructional hours. The university rejected the request, citing university and state regulations prohibiting the use of the public space for worship, as a violation of the Establishment Clause.
Cornerstone filed suit inUnited States District Court for the Western District of Missouri, and the district court issued a summary judgement in favor of the University.[2] Upon appeal, theEighth Circuit reversed the district court,[3] whereupon the university appealed to the US Supreme Court.
In an 8–1 decision, Justice Lewis Powell wrote for the majority, that "through its policy of accommodating their meetings, the University [had] created a forum generally open for use by student groups." In order to justify the exclusion of speech from such a public forum based on the speech's religious content, the University "must show that its regulation is necessary to serve a compelling state interest and that it is narrowly drawn to achieve that end."
In this case, the University asserted an interest in fulfilling its responsibilities under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The Court agreed that this would count as a compelling state interest. But Powell argues that a regulation opening facilities to both religious and secular groups would pass the three-pronged test established in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971). The regulation plainly would have a secular purpose. It wouldn't entangle the state excessively with religion. And it doesn't have a primary effect of advancing or inhibiting religion.
The University's argument [that to allow Cornerstone access to the rooms] misconceives the nature of this case. The question is not whether the creation of a religious forum would violate the Establishment Clause. The University has opened its facilities for use by student groups, and the question is whether it can now exclude groups because of the content of their speech. In this context, we are unpersuaded that the primary effect of the public forum, open to all forms of discourse, would be to advance religion.
Powell concluded that it was specious to argue that this use of the rooms would "advance" religion, and thus Cornerstone won its case.
Justice Stevens concurred in the Court's opinion, but wrote a concurrence to note a minor disagreement about whether or not the situation even amounted to a "forum".
Justice White held that, while the university was notprohibited from granting Cornerstone the right to use the rooms for religious service, strongly asserted that the university had noobligation to do so. What is "can do" is not the same as what it "must do", he stated.
In 1984, Congress passed a law, theEqual Access Act, which extended the effect of the Court's opinion inWidmar to all secondary schools that receive federal education funds.