Citation network
Rosenberger Vs. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of VA.
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 01, 1995
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
-
Rosenberger v. RectorSearch
-
and Visitors of Univ. of Va. - 515 U.S. 819 (1995) OCTOBER TERM, 1994 Syllabus ROSENBERGER ET AL. v. RECTORSearch
-
the principles governing speech in limited public forums, which apply to the SAF under, e. g., Perry Ed. Assn. v. PerrySearch
-
within the forum's limitations, see id., at 46. The most recent and most apposite case in this area is Lamb's Chapel v. CenterSearch
-
the content of expression when it is the speaker or when it enlists private entities to convey its own message, Rust v. SullivanSearch
-
the University may not discriminate based on the viewpoint of private persons whose speech it subsidizes, Regan v. TaxationSearch
-
and viewpoints, including religious ones, are broad and diverse, Board of Ed. of Kiryas Joel Village School Dist. v. GrumetSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Clause dangers exist where the government makes direct money payments to sectarian institutions, see, e. g., Roemer v. BoardSearch
-
government may not regulate speech based on its substantive content or the message it conveys. Police Dept. of Chicago v. MosleySearch
-
or expression, government regulation may not favor one speaker over another. Members of City Council of Los Angeles v. TaxpayersSearch
-
against speech because of its message is presumed to be unconstitutional. See Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCCSearch
-
imposes financial burdens on certain speakers based on the content of their expression. Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. MembersSearch
-
ideology or the opinion or perspective of the speaker is the rationale for the restriction. See Perry Ed. Assn. v. PerrySearch
-
Lamb's Chapel v. CenterSearch
-
justify the State in reserving it for certain groups or for the discussion of certain topics. See, e. g., Cornelius v. NAACPSearch
-
cf. Texas v. JohnsonSearch
-
in determining how to allocate scarce resources to accomplish its educational mission. Citing our decisions in Rust v. SullivanSearch
-
U. S. 173 (1991), Regan v. TaxationSearch
-
with Representation of Wash., 461 U. S. 540 (1983), and Widmar v. VincentSearch
-
Brief for Respondents 16. To this end the University relies on our assurance in Widmar v. VincentSearch
-
when it is the speaker or when it enlists private entities to convey its own message. In the same vein, in Rust v. SullivanSearch
-
which is controlled by different principles. See, e. g., Board of Ed. of Westside Community Schools (Dist. 66) v. MergensSearch
-
Hazelwood School Dist. v. KuhlmeierSearch
-
U. S. 260 , 270-272 (1988). For that reason, the University's reliance on Regan v. TaxationSearch
-
see id., at 548 (quoting Cammarano v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 358 U. S. 498 , 513 (1959), in turn quoting Speiser v. RandallSearch
-
and tradition of thought and experiment that is at the center of our intellectual and philosophic tradition. See Healy v. JamesSearch
-
Keyishian v. BoardSearch
-
Sweezy v. NewSearch
-
Id., at 285 (quoting Hunt v. McNairSearch
-
views are implicated in some degree. The first case in our modern Establishment Clause jurisprudence was Everson v. BoardSearch
-
and viewpoints, including religious ones, are broad and diverse. See Board of Ed. of Kiryas Joel Village School Dist. v. GrumetSearch
-
Witters v. WashingtonSearch
-
a pro rata return to the extent the fee is expended for speech to which he or she does not subscribe. See Keller v. StateSearch
-
Abood v. DetroitSearch
-
each semester by the students is not a general tax designed to raise revenue for the University. See United States v. ButlerSearch
-
any mistaken impression that the student newspapers speak for the University. Capitol Square Review and Advisory Bd. v. PinetteSearch
-
real likelihood that the 842 speech in question is being either endorsed or coerced by the State, see Lee v. WeismanSearch
-
Witters, supra, at 489 (citing Lynch v. DonnellySearch
-
Establishment Clause dangers where the government makes direct money payments to sectarian institutions, citing Roemer v. BoardSearch
-
Board of Ed. of Central School Dist. No.1 v. AllenSearch
-
no more violate the Establishment Clause than would giving those groups access to an assembly hall. See Lamb's Chapel v. CenterSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial