WIDMAR V VINCENT 454 U.S 263 1981 WIDMAR V VINCENT U.S CONSTITUTION U.S GOV'T JUDICIAL RELIGION EDUCATION U.S GOVERNMENT AND CONSTITUTION SIGNIFICANCE IN THIS RULING THE SUPREME COURT PREVENTED A UNIVERSITY FROM DISCRIMINATING AGAINST A CAMPUS RELIGIOUS GROUP THIS CASE ESTABLISHED THAT THE CONSTITUTION'S SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE WAS NOT INTENDED TO KEEP RELIGIOUS GROUPS FROM HAVING AS MUCH ACCESS TO PUBLIC FACILITIES AS OTHER TYPES OF GROUPS BACKGROUND A STUDENT RELIGIOUS GROUP CALLED CORNERSTONE WAS DENIED ACCESS TO FACILITIES AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI AT KANSAS CITY ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE UNIVERSITY COULD NOT ALLOW THE USE OF CAMPUS SPACES FOR RELIGIOUS TEACHINGS OR WORSHIP HOWEVER THE UNIVERSITY'S ESTABLISHED POLICY WAS TO GRANT ALL STUDENT GROUPS EQUAL ACCESS TO CAMPUS FACILITIES CLARK VINCENT WAS AMONG 11 CORNERSTONE MEMBERS WHO FILED SUIT AGAINST THE DEAN OF STUDENTS GARY WIDMAR AND THE BOARD OF CURATORS OF THE UNIVERSITY THE STUDENTS CLAIMED THAT THE DENIAL OF ACCESS TO CAMPUS FACILITIES VIOLATED THEIR FIRST AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION AND EQUAL PROTECTION THE UNIVERSITY ARGUED THAT THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE REQUIRED IT TO DENY ACCESS TO RELIGIOUS GROUPS IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE DECISION THIS CASE WAS ARGUED ON OCTOBER 6 1981 AND DECIDED ON DECEMBER 8 1981 BY A VOTE OF 8 TO 1 JUSTICE LEWIS POWELL SPOKE FOR THE COURT JUSTICE BYRON WHITE DISSENTED THE COURT INDICATED THAT THE UNIVERSITY COULD NOT USE THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE AS A REASON TO DENY ACCESS TO CAMPUS FACILITIES FOR A RELIGIOUS GROUP THE REGULATION OF SPEECH BY THE STATE OR IN THIS CASE A STATE UNIVERSITY MUST BE CONTENT NEUTRAL THEREFORE THE COURT RULED THAT THE RELIGIOUS GROUP AND ALL STUDENT GROUPS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO USE SCHOOL FACILITIES EQUALLY JUSTICE BYRON WHITE DISSENTED ARGUING THAT THE POLICY DID NOT INTERFERE WITH THE STUDENTS FREE EXERCISE OF THEIR RELIGIOUS PRACTICES HE ALSO NOTED THAT FREEDOM OF SPEECH WAS NOT AN ISSUE IN THIS CASE BECAUSE THE SPEECH WAS A MEANS OF RELIGIOUS WORSHIP NOT A MEANS OF EXPRESSION EXCERPT FROM THE OPINION OF THE COURT THE BASIS FOR OUR DECISION IS NARROW HAVING CREATED A FORUM GENERALLY OPEN TO STUDENT GROUPS THE UNIVERSITY SEEKS TO ENFORCE A CONTENT BASED EXCLUSION OF RELIGIOUS SPEECH ITS EXCLUSIONARY POLICY VIOLATES THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE THAT STATE REGULATIONS OF SPEECH SHOULD BE CONTENT NEUTRAL AND THE UNIVERSITY IS UNABLE TO JUSTIFY THIS VIOLATION UNDER APPLICABLE CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARDS
