I read the syllabus. Eugene Volokh has a long discussion.

It's a dramatic narrowing of First Amendment rights on several different fronts.

I'm not saying that the law schools should have won; they're fighting against a dumb law, but not a law that's a priori illegal. But in order to uphold the law against the arguments of the law professors, SCOTUS had to narrow narrow narrow various first amendement rights, repeatedly ruling that the government has broad powers to tell you how to act if you're going to get its money. Not what bureaucratic hoops to jump through, but what you're going to do and say and what you're going to let the government do and say.

It's a pretty scary decision. There is nothing about the Roberts court that I like so far.

Greg, in the interst of disclosure I am a former Air Force officer (10+ years). I served with more than a few "closeted" gay and lesbian officers and enlisted personnel. With only one exception, they were capable and professional. Most everyone working with them knew of their orientation and few cared...at least in the Air Force. I look forward to a day that they may serve openly.

That said I view this ruling in much simpler terms, essentially the US federal government is viewed as a single entity be they DoD or NIH. If the organization as a whole creates some requirements and conditions for continuing the relationship, it doesn't matter which department of the federal government is involved - it's still the federal government. And that's the guiding relationship. It's not as if other foundations making grants do not place limitations on colleges and universities.

As much as some may wish to spin this to some political advantage, the unanimous decision by the court speaks to the clarity of the law in this decision. But singling out Roberts...uh, that hound won't hunt in this case.

It's a pretty scary decision. There is nothing about the Roberts court that I like so far.

Like the Roberts court or not, I see nothing scary about this decision. I would see something scary if they ruled otherwise.

What if it were, say, Planned Parenthood they wanted to keep off the campus and the college received federal money? Would that be equally scary? Same concept.

And if you don't think schools which take federal money should be bound to the honor the Constitution, well, there goes the case against school vouchers.

But truth be told, I despise the concept of "federal funds" anyway. The feds should only be taking what they need to operate legitimate federal functions, and leaving the states to raise their own money according to their people's willingness to pay for it all. Then maybe we wouldn't have so much Ted Stevens and Robert Byrd-style pork.

Moreover, keeping the military - one of America's largest employers - off-campus would seem to be bad for students and the whole country.

I respectfully disagree. First, it's patently ridiculous to assume that military recruiters have no access to college students other than on campus.

Second, given our current misadventure in Iraq, a blanket statement that keeping the military away is "bad for students" is highly debatable, to say the least. And the same goes for whether it's bad for the country as a whole.

It's not as if other foundations making grants do not place limitations on colleges and universities.

True, but private foundations are not bound by the Bill of Rights. The Federal government (supposedly) is.

Greg is right that this ruling is misguided, though it's hardly unprecedented - the Supremes have been narrowing the First Amendment where Federal funds are involved since at least the 80's (for example, the old Title X gag rule and the NEA "decency" provision). CIPA (censoring the Internet in Federally funded libraries) is a more recent example. Not surprising that it was unanimous in light of those precedents.

What if it were, say, Planned Parenthood they wanted to keep off the campus and the college received federal money? ... Same concept.

Huh? There's no Federal law saying that a college taking Federal money has to let Planned Parenthood on campus! Nor is there any likelihood of such a law. And if some hypothetical future rabidly pro-choice, pro-sex-ed Congress did pass such a law, would you argue that it was constitutional? It seems your hypothetical points out the flaw in the court's decision, not its rationality!

P.S. I should point out that I am rabidly pro-choice and pro-sex-ed myself, and I think Planned Parenthood should be on as many campuses as possible. Nevertheless, I think it'd be patently ridiculous to make admitting Planned Parenthood a condition for a college to receive Federal money. It'd be prima facie viewpoint discrimination.

True, but private foundations are not bound by the Bill of Rights. The Federal government (supposedly) is.

Mathwiz, you are under the mistaken impression that this has anything to do with the Bill of Rights. So were the law professors that brought the case.

This is a very simple contracts case. Party A agrees to provide x dollars in exchange for Party B performing work (research) and allowing access to their product (graduates). Should Party B be unwilling to fulfill their portion of the agreement, Party A is within their legal rights to suspend payment of the agreed dollars.

The question is whether law establishing the conditions for agreement were constitutional. As the requirements did not force Party B to break the law or even enter into the agreement, this was pretty easy as a 9-0 judgement would suggest.

Huh? There's no Federal law saying that a college taking Federal money has to let Planned Parenthood on campus! Nor is there any likelihood of such a law. And if some hypothetical future rabidly pro-choice, pro-sex-ed Congress did pass such a law, would you argue that it was constitutional? It seems your hypothetical points out the flaw in the court's decision, not its rationality!

Not really. There's a difference between a law asserting affirmative rights and negative rights.

This isn't about who is NOT allowed to express themselves at places which are publically subsidized. Personally I don't think the military should have been singled out for protection under the law, but the free speech argument still applies even if I think the explicit protection was too narrow. To me, an institution that accepts public funds agrees, within reasonable time and place restrictions, to be a "town square" where free speech (and other First Amendment protections) are honored.

The bottom line is that I think a lot of people who support the colleges who kick the military off campus would think it was reprehensible to kick more liberal groups off. And thus I suspect a fair amount of double standard out there in Opinionville.

To answer your other question back at me about a hypothetical law protecting Planned Parenthood in this situation -- emphatically yes, I would still argue it was constitutional. If they don't want to honor free speech, don't take tax dollars. Simple.

And my other point still stands -- if it's a bad law to hold entities receiving public funds to Constitutional protections, then one of the main arguments against school vouchers (the establishment clause) is equally flawed.

Patrick, the Bill of Rights argument raises the question: Can the government, your party A, enter into a contract with the given conditions at all? The Constitution says that the government has limits on its power. It does not have the same ability to enter into contracts that free persons do.

It's that question which largely leads to my opposition to what the government is trying to do as a policy, even if I'm not sure if it's legal or not. Basically, the schools are opposed to government policy and want to express that opposition, but the government wants to use its power to make their opposition ineffective. I don't think the government should be in the business of suppressing people who oppose it!

Greg, the federal government has long used the threat of withholding funds as a cudgel to influence policy (see drinking age and blood alcohol level requirements on state govenrments for federal highway funds, a case I consider more egregious than this one). It's not new.

The colleges and univerisites in question may be able to pretend that the NIH is one party and DoD is another, but the Congressmen who fund both from the US treasury don't see it that way. To them, the US government is the US government and if you bite the hand that feeds you, you should expect a lot less food.