Supreme Court Unanimous on Rumsfeld v. FAIR

In an 8-0 decision released today, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Solomon Amendment, reversing the Third Circuit Court.  The decision (pdf link) was written by Chief Justice John Roberts.

The Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights (FAIR), a group of 36 law schools and law faculties, challenged the Solomon Amendment, which requires that universities provide equal access to military recruiters if they want to continue receiving federal funds.  Some universities have barred DOD recruiters, claiming that they objected to the US military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy regarding homosexuals serving in the military.  FAIR claimed that the requirement to allow military recruiters on campus violated the law schools First Amendment rights. 

In a local parallel to Rumsfeld v. FAIR, a group of Thomas Johnson High School students has repeatedly appeared before the Frederick County Board of Education, demanding that the board review it's policy of allowing military recruiters access to Frederick County High Schools.  The Board has decided to leave the current policy in place.  I wonder if the Young Socialists of Thomas Johnson High will take notice of the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. 

As BDP wonders, it will be interesting to see if the affected universities stand by their principles and continue to refuse to allow military recruiters on campus, thereby losing millions of dollars in federal funding.  For some reason, I doubt that the high and mighty principals will be quite so important when (and if) Uncle Sam starts cutting the cash flow.

This has always appeared to me as a case of "military=bad guys" syndrome rather than one of discrimination against homosexuals.  The law schools used their objection to DADT as a convenient vehicle to prevent access to campus for DOD recruiters.  If it was really about changing the manner in which the military deals with homosexuals, FAIR would have spent it's money and effort lobbying Congress to get the DADT policy changed. 

Since neither FAIR, nor the Young Socialists of TJ want to make the effort to accomplish real change, one can reasonably conclude that both groups are more anti-military than anti-discrimination.

Legal blogging on the decision by Orin Kerr at Volokh, Professor Bainbridge, and SCOTUSblog.  The guys at Powerline comment here, and include a stinging rebuke of some law profs by Daniel Polsby of the George Mason University Law School.

LATER (March 6, 2006 5:01p ET):  I just read Michelle Malkin's post on this issue and in her post she includes a cut of Chief Justice Robert's decision (from Michelle's reader Paula D.) which is particularly appropriate to the local aspect of this issue-

"We have held that high school students can appreciate the difference between speech a school sponsors and speech a school permits because legally required to do so, pursuant to an equal access policy."

The comment above refers to these cases-

Board of Ed. of Westside Community Schools (Dist. 66) v. Mergens, 496 U. S. 226, 250 (1990) (plurality opinion); accord, id., at 268 (Marshall, J., concurring in judgment); see also Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U. S. 819, 841 (1995) (attribution concern .not a plausible fear.).

The courts have ruled that high school students can differentiate between a school sponsored speaker and the non-school sponsored views of an individual or group on campus. 

It sounds like the Court is giving the kids at TJ more credit for their abilities than their classmates from the Young Socialists Club are.