CONSTITUTIONAL LAWBOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN SYSTEM v

| Table of Forms

Law Journals

| Law Students

| iLaw Dictionar

| News

				United States
				Constitutional Law
				US Supreme Court Case Summaries
				March 22, 2000

US Codes

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

|California Evidence Code

| California Rules of Court

| Federal Courts

| Lawyers

A Legal and Business Portal-Home Page

War

On Terrorism

Special Report

USA Constitutional Law
Table of Contents: Primary

United States Constitutional Law
United States Supreme
Court Case Summaries
March 22, 2000

United States constitutional Law
United States Supreme Court Case Summaries
April 25, 2000

U.S. Supreme Court Opinions
Case Summaries -March 22, 2000
--------------------------------
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN SYSTEM v. SOUTHWORTH et al.
(3/22/00 - No. 98-1189)
Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Argued November 9, 1999--Decided March 22, 2000
Petitioner, Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System
(hereinafter University), requires students at the University's Madison
campus to pay a segregated activity fee. The fee supports various campus
services and extracurricular student activities. In the University's view,
such fees enhance students' educational experience by promoting
extracurricular activities, stimulating advocacy and debate on diverse
points of view, enabling participation in campus administrative activity,
and providing opportunities to develop social skills, all consistent with
the University's broad educational mission. Registered student organizations
(RSO's) engaging in a number of diverse expressive activities are eligible
to receive a portion of the fees, which are administered by the student
government subject to the University's approval. The parties have stipulated
that the process for reviewing and approving RSO applications for funding is
administered in a viewpoint-neutral fashion. RSO's may also obtain funding
through a student referendum. Respondents, present and former Madison campus
students, filed suit against the University, alleging, inter alia, that the
fee violates their First Amendment rights, and that the University must
grant them the choice not to fund RSO's that engage in political and
ideological expression offensive to their personal beliefs. In granting
respondents summary judgment, the Federal District Court declared the fee
program invalid under Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Ed., 431 U. S. 209
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=431&in
vol=209, and Keller v. State Bar of Cal., 496 U. S. 1
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=496&in
vol=1, and enjoined the University from using the fees to fund any RSO
engaging in political or ideological speech. Agreeing with the District
Court that this Court's compelled speech precedents control, the Seventh
Circuit concluded that the program was not germane to the University's
mission, did not further a vital University policy, and imposed too great a
burden on respondents' free speech rights. It added that protecting those
rights was of heightened concern following Rosenberger v. Rector and
Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U. S. 819
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=515&in
vol=819, because if the University could not discriminate in distributing
the funds, students could not be compelled to fund organizations engaging in
political and ideological speech. It extended the District Court's order and
enjoined the University from requiring students to pay that portion of the
fee used to fund RSO's engaged in political or ideological expression.
Held:
     1. The First Amendment permits a public university to charge its
students an activity fee used to fund a program to facilitate
extracurricular student speech, provided that the program is viewpoint
neutral. The University may sustain the extracurricular dimensions of its
programs by using mandatory student fees with viewpoint neutrality as the
operational principle. Pp. 9-14.
     2. Because the parties have stipulated that the University's program
respects the principle of viewpoint neutrality, the program in its basic
structure must be found consistent with the First Amendment. Pp. 15-16.
     3. While not well developed on the present record, the referendum
aspect of the University's program appears to permit RSO funding or
defunding by majority vote of the student body. To the extent the referendum
substitutes majority determinations for viewpoint neutrality it would
undermine the constitutional protection the program requires. Pp. 16-17.
151 F. 3d 717, reversed and remanded.
Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, C. J.,
and O'Connor, Scalia, Thomas, and Ginsburg, JJ., joined. Souter, J., filed
an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Stevens and Breyer, JJ.,
joined.
To read the full text of this opinion, go to:
http://laws.findlaw.com/US/000/98-1189.html
BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN SYSTEM v. SOUTHWORTH et al.(3/22/00 - No. 98-1189)-USACL

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

WAL-MART STORES, INC. v. SAMARA BROTHERS, INC.
Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
(3/22/00 - No. 99-150)
Argued January 19, 2000--Decided March 22, 2000
Respondent Samara Brothers, Inc., designs and manufactures a line of
children's clothing. Petitioner Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., contracted with a
supplier to manufacture outfits based on photographs of Samara garments.
After discovering that Wal-Mart and other retailers were selling the
so-called knockoffs, Samara brought this action for, inter alia,
infringement of unregistered trade dress under §43(a) of the Trademark Act
of 1946 (Lanham Act). The jury found for Samara. Wal-Mart then renewed a
motion for judgment as a matter of law, claiming that there was insufficient
evidence to support a conclusion that Samara's clothing designs could be
legally protected as distinctive trade dress for purposes of §43(a). The
District Court denied the motion and awarded Samara relief. The Second
Circuit affirmed the denial of the motion.
Held: In a §43(a) action for infringement of unregistered trade dress, a
product's design is distinctive, and therefore protectible, only upon a
showing of secondary meaning. Pp. 3-10.
165 F. 3d 120, reversed and remanded.
Scalia, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
To read the full text of this opinion, go to:
http://laws.findlaw.com/US/000/99-150.html
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY WAL-MART STORES, INC. v. SAMARA BROTHERS, INC.(3/22/00 - No. 99-150)

-----------------------------------------------------------
FINDLAW US SUPREME COURT CASE SUMMARIES
http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/supreme.html-
FindLaw Law Library - legal guides, memos and briefs
http://library.findlaw.com
FindLaw Professionals
http://profs.findlaw.com/
FindLaw Lawyer Marketing
http://marketing.findlaw.com/
FindLaw Tech Deals
http://techdeals.findlaw.com
Insurance Center:
Compare rates from top-rated insurance companies at
ReliaQuote.com Rated #1 by Forbes and SmartMoney:
http://www.reliaquote.com/findlaw
------------------------------------------------------------

_________________________
Have a BEAUTIFUL DAY!!!!!

CONSTITUTIONAL LAWBOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN SYSTEM v. SOUTHWORTH et al.(3/22/00 - No. 98-1189)