October Term 2005 · Docket 04-1152
Does the Solomon Amendment violate university speech rights?
Universities argue the law forces them to host military recruiters. The government argues the law merely conditions funding on equal access.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
General Clement argued the Solomon Amendment conditions funding on equal access. He stated this is what any donor would expect from funded institutions.
Mr. Rosenkranz argued the case is not about barring recruiters. He stated Congress wanted more than just entry to campus.
Justice Breyer noted the statute originated during the Vietnam era. He pointed out it addressed universities excluding military personnel.
Justice Scalia argued the statute requires more than equal access. He stated it demands specific treatment for military recruiters.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 7-23 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 7-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 37-39 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 37-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 43-1 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 43-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 49-23 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 49-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-54 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 1-13 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 1-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 29-37 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 29-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 17-19 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 17-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 29-29 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 29-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 41-47 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 41-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 23-27 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 23-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 29-31 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 29-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 35-39 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 35-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 9-17 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 9-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 3-11 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 3-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 61, lines 3-45 — Transcript, file page 61, lines 3-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 64, lines 47-54 — Transcript, file page 64, lines 47-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 11-39 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 11-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 3-23 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 3-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 45-54 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 45-54
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The dispute centers on the Solomon Amendment. This law ties federal funding to campus access for military recruiters. Universities claim this violates their First Amendment rights. The government claims the law is a valid spending condition.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 49-23 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 49-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-54 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 29-29 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 29-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 61, lines 3-45 — Transcript, file page 61, lines 3-45
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on December 6, 2005.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 64, lines 47-54 — Transcript, file page 64, lines 47-54
What each side wants
The government wants the Court to uphold the Solomon Amendment. It seeks to keep federal funding tied to equal campus access for military recruiters.
The universities want the Court to strike down the Solomon Amendment. They seek to end the funding condition that forces them to host military recruiters.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 49-23 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 49-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-54 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 29-29 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 29-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 61, lines 3-45 — Transcript, file page 61, lines 3-45
What each side says
The government argues the law is a valid spending condition. It claims universities accept federal funds and must accept equal access for military recruiters.
The universities argue the law compels speech. They claim the government cannot force them to host recruiters they view as discriminatory.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 49-23 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 49-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-54 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 29-29 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 29-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 61, lines 3-45 — Transcript, file page 61, lines 3-45
What the justices asked
Justice Scalia asked why the defense relies on the Spending Clause. He questioned why it does not rely on the power to raise armies.
Justice Ginsburg asked if a statutory interpretation would avoid the constitutional question. She asked if that interpretation would be unreasonable under current law.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 7-23 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 7-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 37-39 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 37-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 43-1 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 43-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 1-13 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 1-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 29-37 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 29-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 17-19 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 17-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 41-47 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 41-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 23-27 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 23-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 29-31 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 29-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 35-39 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 35-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 9-17 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 9-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 3-11 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 3-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 64, lines 47-54 — Transcript, file page 64, lines 47-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 11-39 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 11-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 3-23 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 3-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 45-54 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 45-54
Why it matters
This case defines the limits of federal funding conditions. It determines whether the government can tie grants to specific campus access policies. The outcome shapes the balance between federal power and institutional autonomy.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 49-23 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 49-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-54 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 29-29 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 29-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 61, lines 3-45 — Transcript, file page 61, lines 3-45
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 7-23 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 7-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 37-39 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 37-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 43-1 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 43-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 1-13 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 1-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 29-37 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 29-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 17-19 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 17-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 41-47 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 41-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 23-27 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 23-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 29-31 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 29-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 35-39 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 35-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 9-17 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 9-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 3-11 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 3-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 64, lines 47-54 — Transcript, file page 64, lines 47-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 11-39 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 11-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 3-23 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 3-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 45-54 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 45-54
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 49-23 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 49-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-54 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 29-29 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 29-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 61, lines 3-45 — Transcript, file page 61, lines 3-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 49-23 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 49-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-54 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 29-29 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 29-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 61, lines 3-45 — Transcript, file page 61, lines 3-45
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.