Law Group Wins Solomon Challenge
By kowalski Posted in User Blogs — Comments (2) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Today in a 2-1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Philadelphia ruled that the 1995 law known as the Solomon Amendment, which bars the federal government from disbursing funds to educational institutions that obstruct on-campus military recruitment, violates the First Amendment rights of an association of law schools which banded together to challenge the Solomon Amendment as members of the Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights. The decision by the court affirms that the Solomon Amendment infringes on the First Amendment rights of these institutions because it forces them to accept military recruiters on their campuses even though they object to the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, which the schools assert violates their nondiscrimination policies by excluding gay men and women from military service.
The New York Times article is here.
Many of the member schools have chosen to remain anonymous (read the article), but a partial list of the ones that have gone public with their membership are listed here and include Georgetown, Harvard, NYU, the University of Michigan, Stanford and Yale.
I believe the premise would be "by process". If by withholding funds the schools are in any danger whatsoever financially(greater financial burden compaired to those schools accepting and is that discriminatory?) or legally ,(SC already said banning gays in the military is a discriminatory practice and illegal) and if those (one or both) burdens impose a greatest risk to those schools that take the position against those that the [Solomon Amendment] attempts to impose, then it seems withholding funds "would be illegal".
I don't think it would just be the discrimination part of it that is solid, but the discrimination under financial consideration and burden may be equally as viable.
The "Practice of Withholding Funds" for this purpose would most likely always be considered "illegal".
Remove the "Don't ask Don't tell" policy and there is no issue really. But, then the military would have to change it's overall difinition, and I think that doubtful.
Try this one.
I'm not a lawyer, although I have worked for a law school and I found the sample letters, tips for lobbying faculty and sample membership recruitment emails (especially the advice about getting together a coalition of "strange bedfellows", not the "usual suspects") reminded me of the "good old days" ;) when I watched similar lobbying efforts at the school where I worked.
If we have any lawyers here on Redstate who are familiar with this case or any of the likely implications (beyond the obvious) - I'm all ears and I'm sure everyone else here is, too.