Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Widmar Vs. Vincent

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Dec 08, 1981

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

65 entries 8 linked 57 unlinked
Show
  1. Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. Vs. Conrad US Supreme Court · Mar 18, 1975
  2. Shelton Vs. Tucker US Supreme Court · Dec 12, 1960
  3. Niemotko Vs. Maryland US Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1951
  4. Hunt Vs. Mcnair US Supreme Court · Jun 25, 1973
  5. Mcgowan Vs. Maryland US Supreme Court · May 29, 1961
  6. Committee for Public Education Vs. Nyquist US Supreme Court · Jun 25, 1973
  7. Healy Vs. James US Supreme Court · Jun 26, 1972
  8. Tilton Vs. Richardson US Supreme Court · Jun 28, 1971
  9. U.S. 263 (1981) U.S. Supreme Court Widmar v. Vincent
    Search
  10. U.S. 263 (1981) Widmar v. Vincent
    Search
  11. United States. Upon cross-motions for summary judgment, the District Court upheld the challenged regulation. Chess v. Widmar
    Search
  12. only justified, but required, by the Establishment Clause of the Federal Constitution. Id. at 916. Under Tilton v. Richardson
    Search
  13. than other types of expression. Id. at 918. The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed. Chess v. Widmar
    Search
  14. public, even if it was not required to create the forum in the first place. See, e.g., Madison Joint School District v. Wisconsin
    Search
  15. U. S. 269 rights of speech and association extend to the campuses of state universities. See, e.g., Healy v. James
    Search
  16. Tinker v. Des
    Search
  17. worship and discussion. These are forms of speech and association protected by the First Amendment. See, e.g., Heffron v. International
    Search
  18. Saia v. New
    Search
  19. is necessary to serve a compelling state interest, and that it is narrowly drawn to achieve that end. See Carey v. Brown
    Search
  20. U. S. 602 , 403 U. S. 612 -613 (1971). See Committee for Public Education v. Regan
    Search
  21. Roemer v. Maryland
    Search
  22. groups, and the question is whether it can now exclude groups because of the content of their speech. See Healy v. James
    Search
  23. of religion. Committee for Public Education v. Nyquist
    Search
  24. Roemer v. Maryland
    Search
  25. The provision of benefits to so broad a spectrum of groups is an important index of secular effect. See, e.g., Wolman v. Walter
    Search
  26. quoted in Committee for Public Education v. Regan
    Search
  27. scrutiny in cases in which a State undertakes to regulate speech on the basis of its content. See, e.g., Carey v. Brown
    Search
  28. Police Dept. of Chicago v. Mosley
    Search
  29. Sweezy v. New
    Search
  30. University of California Regents v. Bakke
    Search
  31. Finally, Page 454 U. S. 277 we affirm the continuing validity of cases, e.g., Healy v. James
    Search
  32. Affidavit of Florian Chess (Sept. 29, 1977), quoted in Chess v. Widmar
    Search
  33. Chess v. Widmar
    Search
  34. least for its students, possesses many of the characteristics of a public forum. See generally Police Dept. of Chicago v. Mosley
    Search
  35. Nor does it repudiate last Term's decision in Heffron v. International
    Search
  36. principled line, it is highly doubtful that it would lie within the judicial competence to administer. Cf. Fowler v. Rhode
    Search
  37. inquiries would tend inevitably to entangle the State with religion in a manner forbidden by our cases. E.g., Walz v. Tax
    Search
  38. Healy v. James
    Search
  39. The Establishment Clause has been made applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. See Cantwell v. Connecticut
    Search
  40. religion. This distinction is required by the plain text of the Constitution. It is followed in our cases. E.g., Stone v. Graham
    Search
  41. permitting school facilities to be used for instruction by religious groups, but not by others. See, e.g., McCollum v. Board
    Search
  42. See Chess v. Widmar
    Search
  43. O'Hair v. Andrus
    Search
  44. policy would have the primary effect of advancing religion, the District Court in this case relied primarily on Tilton v. Richardson
    Search
  45. have acknowledged the right of religious speakers to use public forums on equal terms with others. See, e.g., Heffron v. International
    Search
  46. and should be able to appreciate that the University's policy is one of neutrality toward religion. See Tilton v. Richardson
    Search
  47. U.S. Supreme Court Widmar v. Vincent
    Search
  48. Under Tilton v. Richardson
    Search
  49. Madison Joint School District v. Wisconsin
    Search
  50. Heffron v. International
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial