Three student groups cannot join the University to fight the elimination of mandatory student services fees.
In a strongly worded opinion that might influence lower courts, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Monday that University YW and the La Raza and Queer Student Cultural centers do not posses a “legally protectable interest” that would allow them to intervene on the side of the University in a lawsuit against the current student services fees system.
Five students brought the suit in February 1998, claiming their First Amendment rights were being infringed upon when forced to pay student services fees to groups whose speech they didn’t believe in.
“The decision greatly underestimated what our clients have at stake,” said Pat Logue, the attorney representing the three student groups. Logue argued that the student groups had a First Amendment right to the fees money.
“The basic issue is that the University is entitled to ask a fee to support speech from every viewpoint,” she said.
However the 8th circuit said in its opinion that the groups only showed an economic interest, not a First Amendment right.
“(The student groups) have no constitutional or legal right to compel unwilling students to provide financial support for their activities,” the opinion stated.
“This also can be understood that these particular groups cannot compel other students or even the University to have a funding system,” said Mark Rotenberg, the University’s general counsel.
Jordan Lorence, the attorney for the students suing the University, said he was very pleased; not because the student groups were excluded, he said, but because the legal argument Logue made was thrown out.
“It’s a strong statement about where the 8th circuit wants to go with this,” he said. “If the University were wise, they’d read the writing on the wall.”
Because the lower courts look closely at higher court opinions, Lorence said, it will be hard for the University to save the current fees system.
But Rotenberg said the opinion can be interpreted a few different ways — and depending on the view, it doesn’t impact the original suit as much.
“This leaves the University’s counsel to represent the student fee structure we have in place,” Rotenberg said.
Lorence said in a pre-trial conference that the judge in the case, Paul Magnuson, didn’t want the suit to go to trial. In other words, he was asking for a settlement.
Rotenberg said judges always hope cases can be resolved before a trial can start and added that he doesn’t expect this case to go to trial.
“Whatever they propose, I’m in a position to look at,” Rotenberg said, declining to talk about specifics.
The student groups now have a couple of options. Logue could appeal the opinion to a full 8th circuit hearing — the original argument was heard before three judges. Or Logue could appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. But Logue said she wasn’t sure what she was going to do yet.
The lower courts have allowed the student groups to file friend of the court briefs arguing their position in lieu of being a party to the suit. The court can include or ignore these briefs.
“We have no ability to argue or appeal,” Logue said, leaving the University to defend her clients’ rights.
But Lorence said he didn’t think Logue needed to intervene for one reason: “They are not going to add anything different than the University will add.”