The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of the Soloman Amendment, Congress’ requirement that law schools that receive federal funds must permit military recruiters access to their campuses.
This is, of course, an excellent decision, right on the money. The Third Circuit had previously struck down the Soloman Amendment, relying heavily on a case called Boy Scouts of America v. Dale. In Dale, the Court held that the Scouts’ First Amendment right of free association meant that they could not be compelled to accept gay scout leaders. The Third Circuit said that using that reasoning, law schools could not be compelled to accept military recruiters.
The Supreme Court shredded that argument, pointing out:
The Court also shredded the argument that the law schools’ own message is being somehow compromised by the mere presence of recruiters:
This is both a correct decision under the law, and a wise expression of national policy. How nice to have both at once!
I’m reading the opinion at the moment and I would have to agree with you. It appears to be a good decision.*
*Though I will reserve judgment until I can read the dissent.
No, the Solomon Amendment has nothing to do with different standards for different groups. The Amendment says that if an institution wants government money, it has to grant space to military recruiters regardless of any standards that institution may set for other employers. The problem was that many schools had a policy of not allowing any institution/employer to recruit on campus if they had a policy of discrimination against certain classes, including sexual orientation. Since the military has a blatant policy of discrimination based on sexual orientation, they ran afoul of these guidelines and so were barred from recruiting.
Heaven’s no, I would never joke about such an important matter of public policy. Why, if Congress can’t intervene in spelling, do they really have any power at all?!
I have a tiny bit of sympathy for the desires of the schools, (not a huge amount), but I don’t see how they actually thought their argument would hold water. (Particularly since sexual orientation is still not a federally recognized class against which one can be barred from discriminating.)
That’s really not the issue at hand although it was definitely one that the law schools were smart to bring up.
Certain schools, Ivy league schools being chief among them, have been trying to keep military recruiters off campus at least since the Vietnam War. This is just another attempt at an old goal for certain colleges. Sort of like Pro-Lifers introduce new stuff to try and attack Roe v. Wade all the time.
Yep, anyone who lives in America, especially lawyers should be aware that a common knowledge thing here is that if you accept federal funding you accept the fact it will at some point be used as leverage against you.
Bricker’s title isn’t precisely accurate however as Law Schools can ban military recruiters if they choose to lose the federal funding. I believe 2-3 law schools have actually done this already.
I believe the court also ruled that Congress could directly require the schools to accept the recruiters instead of making it a funding-dependent decision. But, someone knowledgier than I may come along and correct me.
