820 F. Supp. 2d 932
W.D. Wis.2011Background
- CFACT is a UW–Madison student organization alleging First Amendment rights violations in the campus fee allocation system.
- The dispute centers on allocating General Student Services Fund (GSSF) and contract-status funding under UW System policies.
- Policy F50 classifies segregated fees into allocable and non-allocable; allocable funds support campus student activities.
- ASM bylaws and SSFC procedures govern eligibility, hearings, appeals, and chancellor/Board review for funding decisions.
- In 2008–2010, CFACT was denied GSSF eligibility; WISPIRG received funding (including contract status) for 2009–11; as of the decision, neither group received funding.
- The court granted summary judgment for defendants, denied CFACT’s injunctive/damages/declaratory relief, and denied motions to strike as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether GSSF eligibility criteria violate the First Amendment. | CFACT contends criteria vest unbridled discretion. | Criteria are bridled by specific standards. | No; standards sufficiently constrain discretion. |
| Whether contract-status criteria are vague, enabling viewpoint discrimination. | Policy F50 vague; allows bias. | Criteria provide express standards with safeguards. | Not unconstitutional on face; safeguards exist. |
| Whether there is ongoing disparate treatment requiring an injunction. | WISPIRG funding ongoing; CFACT entitled to same. | WISPIRG funding ended; no ongoing violation. | No ongoing violation; injunction not warranted. |
| Whether Board/ASM officials can be held liable for damages. | Board/ASM liable for discriminatory decisions. | No vicarious liability; individual wrongdoers not sued. | Damages against Board/ASM officials dismissed. |
| Whether declaratory relief is appropriate. | Declaratory relief should clarify rights. | No ongoing violation or useful declaratory purpose. | Declaratory relief denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Southworth v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Wis. Sys., 529 U.S. 217 (2000) (viewpoint-neutral funding; formulation of prior restraints concerns)
- Southworth v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Wis. Sys., 307 F.3d 566 (2002) (unbridled discretion standard in viewpoint-neutrality context)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (heightened standard for pleading; personal involvement in §1983)
- Williams v. Wisconsin, 336 F.3d 576 (2003) (Ex parte Young; prospective relief against state officials)
- Thomas v. Chicago Park Dist., 227 F.3d 921 (2000) (judicial caution against striking down procedural standards)