Seg fees case has national implications

Southworth

Susan Ullman

Case at a glance Q: Who are the plaintiffs and defendants? A: Scott Southworth, Amy Schoepke and Keith Bannach, former UW law students, are the original plaintiffs. Four other students have since joined the case as plaintiffs. The defendants are the members of the UW System Board of Regents in their official capacities as regents. Q: Who are the attorneys? A: Susan Ullman, state assistant attorney general, will present the oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court. Assisting Ullman is Pete Anderson, state assistant attorney general. The plaintiffs’ attorney is Jordan Lorence of the Northstar Legal Center, Fairfax, Va. Q: What is the case timeline? A: The case was filed April 2, 1996, with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. U.S. District Judge John Shabaz ruled in favor of the plaintiffs Nov. 29, 1996. After appeal by the regents, a three-judge panel of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ruling Aug. 10, 1998. The regents appealed to the full circuit court, which upheld the ruling Oct. 27, 1998. The regents then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court case number is 98-1189. Q: What exactly will the U.S. Supreme Court decide? A: The court says it will decide this specific issue: “Whether the First Amendment is offended by a policy or program under which public university students must pay mandatory fees that are used in part to support organizations that engage in political speech.” Q: What are possible outcomes? A: If the university prevails, the current segregated fee system will remain in place. If not, two new fee plans have been discussed, but the regents have made no decision yet.

The amount of money is relatively low. But the stakes couldn’t be any higher.

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear the university’s segregated fee lawsuit Tuesday, Nov. 9. The lawsuit, which challenges the constitutionality of the university’s mandatory student fee system, could force public colleges and universities nationwide to re-examine their student fee systems.

Southworth v. Board of Regents, the case’s legal title, is a unique and compelling examination of one of the nation’s foundational principles. Scott Southworth and two other conservative law students filed the federal lawsuit in April 1996, claiming the mandatory student fee forced them to support student groups they opposed on political, ideological or religious grounds. Since then, both the university and the plaintiffs have argued that the First Amendment is on their side.

“The funding of student services and a forum for the expression of diverse views does not offend the First Amendment,” reads the university’s legal brief to the Supreme Court. “It instead furthers First Amendment values by promoting vigorous debate in an educational setting entirely suited to that discussion.”

Counters Jordan Lorence, the plaintiffs’ attorney, in his Supreme Court brief: “The university must show it has a compelling interest in forcing students to fund the political and ideological advocacy of groups the students find objectionable, and that there is no less restrictive means to accomplish this governmental interest. This the university cannot do.”

The Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling in the spring.

Of the entire segregated fee, which was $331.50 in 1995-96 and is now $445, only a small portion (about $13 in 1995-96) funds student groups. But Southworth and the other plaintiffs say what’s at issue is not the amount of money but what they contend is the coerced funding of speech with which they disagree.

“The First Amendment gives you the right to speak,” Southworth says. “It also gives you the right not to speak.”

After a U.S. District Court judge and the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled for the plaintiffs, the UW System Board of Regents appealed to the Supreme Court. Four other UW–Madison students have since joined the lawsuit as plaintiffs.

The case has generated intense national interest. Fifteen states and numerous organizations have submitted briefs supporting the university’s position. One group, the Pacific Legal Foundation, filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting the plaintiffs. And similar lawsuits have since been filed in Oregon and Minnesota.