Monday, March 06, 2006

Roberts' revenge?

Chief Justice Roberts today got to do something that most law students and lawyers dream of--he hammered a bunch of law professors. In Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic & Institutional Rights, ___ U.S. ___, 2006 WL 521237 (Mar. 6, 2006), an unanimous Supreme Court upheld the Solomon amendment, which conditions federal assistance to universities on allowing the military to recruit on campus and giving them the same access to students that other recruiters have. A group of law professors got together to challenge the law, and they were successful in the Third Circuit in having enforcement of the law enjoined on the ground that it violated the First Amendment speech and associational rights of law schools. The law schools object to the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy against gays and lesbians serving in the military. The Chief Justice bluntly rejected the professors' arguments, at one point saying that one of their arguments trivialized recognized First Amendment freedoms. I wonder if the opinion might have been a bit less harsh had the respondents been anybody other than law professors. Probably not, given the arguments that were advanced.

5 comments:

Ann said...

Do you ever comment on opinions that have come through your own circuit? I haven't noticed any, but maybe I've missed them.

Randy said...

A most astute observation, Ann. No, I don't comment on opinions put out by the Fifth Circuit. It seems like that would be unprofessional somehow.

Ann said...

Yes, I would have thought that could be problematic. I do enjoy your SCOTUS comments. Truly, I never would have thought of today's ruling as having a relationship to the revenge of the nerds.

Who did not vote, and why?

Craig said...

I think Alito did not vote; presumably he did not participate because of his late start.

Randy said...

Craig is correct. Alito wasn't on SCOTUS during oral argument of the case, so he didn't vote.