At 11 a.m. ET today, C-SPAN will stream the oral arguments in Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic & Institutional Rights, involving the constitutionality of the Solomon Amendment, requiring universities to allow military recruiters on campus or lose federal funds.

  • Can a person actually believe that a university endorses “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, simply because the military is actively recruiting on a campus? When legal groups, either anti-abortion, or pro-choice recruit at a campus, is the university actively supporting either view? In Board of Education of Westside Community Schools v. Mergens, the Supreme Court held that “students are mature enough and are likely to understand that a school does not endorse or support …. speech that it merely permits on a nondiscriminatory basis.”


  • Anonymous

    This is a fight to give recgonition to homosexuals. The law students are expressing a belief and standing by it. The military needs to grow up; homosexuals are no different than anyone else. The homosexual phobia stems from religous morals which is not very secular. Its about political evolution; blacks, women, and homosexuals are no less qualified to serve our Country.

  • Anonymous

    Sometimes Supreme Court ruling reverses litigation that had been going on for years.
    Mercer v . Duke University Title IX case is one example. But when the Supreme Court ruled in Barnes v. Gorman that ADA did not allow punitive damges, USCA4 which had held the case in abeyance in anticipation of High Court ruling, reversed the punitive damages. Since Rumsfeld v. FAIR has been alluded as similar to Title VI and Title IX, it remains to be seen what route the Supreme court takes. Link to Mercer case. >H