Widmar v. Vincent
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Illinois Institute Of Technology *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
1068
Subject
Law
Date
Nov 24, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
2
Uploaded by ConstableBeeMaster768
Surname 1
Student’s Name
Professor’s Name
Course
Date
Widmar v. Vincent
Issue
Did the University of Missouri’s refusal to accommodate Cornerstone’s religious meetings
amount to the violation of freedom of association, speech, or exercise of religion?
Rule
The court, led by Justice Lewis F. Powel, Jr., held that the University of Missouri violated the
Cornerstone members’ First Amendment rights. The judges ruled that when the institution
opened its facilities for meetings, it established a public forum for the student groups. The
university excluded Cornerstone members based on the content of their speech. The University
of Missouri must comply with its constitutional obligations by providing rights to all groups
without discrimination or prejudice.
Analysis
The University of Missouri in Kansas City often provides its facilities to be used by different
registered students groups. However, the institution excluded Cornerstone, a registered student
group, from using one of the facilities for religious worship and meetings. The institution
defended its decision by stating that it had prohibited such facilities on the grounds of religious
worship or teaching. The Cornerstone members, also students at the university, sued the
institution challenging its regulations. They indicated that such rules violated the students’ rights
to exercise religion, equal protection, and freedom of speech. The Court Appeals for the Eight
Surname 2
Circuit held that the university regulation was primarily content-based discrimination against
religious speech without any compelling justification.
Conclusion
According to the Court of Appeals, the state university exclusionary policy violated the
fundamental rights and principles that the regulation of speech should be neutral. The institution
was required to prove that its regulation served a compelling state interest and was drafted to
help achieve such a purpose. Although the university followed its constitutional obligation, a
policy that permitted equal access to a religious group would not be compatible with the First
Amendment’s Establishment Clause.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help