F: Title X funded programs could not consider abortion a legitimate method of family planning.

I: Whether restriction violates 1st or 5th Amendments.

H: No

R: Doesn't violate 1st amendment because Title X does not forbid grantees from performing or discussing abortions except when using Title X funds. Precedent has been that govt can attach conditions with funding. Doesn't violate 5th amendment because it leaves women in the same place as if govt had chosed not to fund anything.

Ru: Govt can attach conditions to funding...??

(1983) pp. 433-440

F: PEA had exclusive access to school mailboxes. Competing teachers union (PLEA) sued for rights to the boxes too.

I: Whether the PEA's exclusive use of school mail violates the 1st Amendment.

H: No.

R: The school's mail system was found not to be a "limited public forum". The PEA may maintain exclusive control of the boxes because they are the official union that the district works with. The PLEA also has other ways to communicate.

Ru: On government property that has not been deemed a public forum, not all speech is equally situated, and the state may draw distinctions which relate to the special purpose for which the property is used.

(1989) pp. 403-409

F: NYC hired and independent sound company to regulate the sound levels in response to complaints from nearby residents. RAR sued, claiming that sound level regulations hinders their ability to freely communicate.

I: Whether the ordinance requiring capped sound levels violates the 1st Amendment's freedom of expression.

H: No.

R: The Court said that the appellate court erred in requiring that the city prove that its regulation was the least intrusive means of furthering a legitimate government interest. They said that the ordinance is valid on its face.

Ru: Even in a public forum, the government may impose reasonable restrictions on the time, place, and/or manner of protected speech, provided that the restrictions "are justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech, that they are narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, and that they leave open ample alternative channels for the communication of information."

(1969) pp. 246-253

F: Kids wore armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War shortly after the school adopted a "no armbands" policy.

I: Whether the school board's rule violates the 1st Amendment's freedom of expression.

H: Yes.

R: The armbands did not cause a disturbance or interference in school activities. The armbands are akin to "pure speech" and are protected under the 1st Amendment.

Ru: Undifferentiated fear or apprehension of a disturbance is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression, even in a school setting.

(1977) pp. 562-567

-members of a teachers union have a constitutional right to withhold payment of any union fees that support political and ideological causes.

-union may collect fees for collective bargaining only

(1995) pp. 457-464

-U of V refused to fund Christian newspaper because they said that its message violated the Establishment Clause

-Court found that this violated the 1st Amendment--the government cannot impose financial burdens based on content without strict scrutiny

-the government doesn't have to fund student groups, but once they do, they can't discriminate based on viewpoint

(2000) pp. 568-572

-universities are not the same as unions

-universities must allocate in a viewpoint-neutral manner

-a university cannot fund only the groups it wants to, but the federal government may