The Solomon Amendment is a Federal law which directs that certain Federal funds be withheld from recipient colleges and universities that do not grant military recruiters access to their campuses on a level equal to that provided to any other employer.

The Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights (FAIR), an association of law schools and professors that oppose discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, alleged that the Solomon Amendment infringed on its First Amendment freedoms of speech and association due to the military’s discriminatory recruitment practices (i.e., “don’t ask, don’t tell”). (See Abhi’s previous post on the case here.)

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled against FAIR yesterday, issuing an opinion [.pdf] that upholds the constitutionality of the statute and that in effect gives FAIR three-snaps in a Z-formation (i.e., the “Zorro snap”). (While some legal commentators predicted a unanimous outcome, I honestly did not think a case this contested in the public sphere would yield an 8-0 result.)

Joan Biskupic of USA TODAY described the Court’s reasoning:

“Accommodating the military’s message does not affect the law schools’ speech, because the schools are not speaking when they host interviews and recruiting receptions.”

[T]he basic communications required of colleges were bulletin board notices and e-mails [which] hardly could be compared to the kind of “compelled” government speech that has been invalidated through the years, such as a West Virginia law that required schoolchildren to recite the Pledge of Allegiance and to salute the American flag, or a New Hampshire law that ordered the state motto — “Live Free or Die” — to be on license plates. [Link]

As this astute (and hopefully single) desi notes on her blog, Mia Culpa:

The decision boosts the Bush administration as it struggles to maintain recruiting levels to wage wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It’s a defeat for Harvard, Yale, Columbia and other universities that accused the government of intruding on academic freedom. [Link]

I was interested in this case in part because the Court could have addressed the extent to which the government can use Federal funding as a means to ensure compliance with Federal civil rights laws, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which generally prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in all programs or activities that receive Federal financial assistance. Title VI may be used to challenge racial profiling and hate crimes.

The government argued that the Solomon Amendment is analogous to Federal civil rights statutes, in that the government may impose conditions on institutions that receive Federal funding. FAIR, however, contended that the Solomon Amendment is different, as the government cannot subject recipients of Federal financial assistance to conditions that violate the Constitution. (FAIR also claimed it is ironic that, in defending the Solomon Amendment, the government invoked civil rights laws in its attempt to require the schools to assist discrimination.)

But, the Court disagreed with FAIR. In stating that the Solomon Amendment does not place an unconstitutional condition on the receipt of Federal funds, the Court also noted that the First Amendment would not prevent Congress from directly imposing the statute’s equal access requirement.