Galda v. Rutgers
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
772 F.2d 1060 (1985)
- Written by Mike Begovic, JD
Facts
Rutgers University (Rutgers) (defendant) required students to pay a fee of $3.50 to support the New Jersey Public Interest Research Group (PIRG), a politically nonpartisan independent research group that advocated for social change through research, lobbying, and advocacy. Rutgers students were eligible for internships that offered academic credit for the work they performed. PIRG focused on a range of issues affecting students and nonstudents, including a nuclear-weapons freeze, environmental preservation, federal student assistance, and an equal-rights amendment. Rutgers administrators believed that financial support for PIRG was warranted because it offered numerous educational benefits to students, including public speaking, research, leadership, and public service. Students who did not wish to offer financial support to PIRG could request a refund of the fee. Joseph Galda and several other Rutgers students (the PIRG opponents) (plaintiffs) filed suit, alleging that Rutgers, by requiring them to financially support an organization that espoused a political ideology they did not agree with, violated their First Amendment rights. Following a remand, a district court entered judgment for Rutgers based on a finding that PIRG had substantial educational components that supported Rutgers’s decision to utilize it for the benefit of students. The PIRG opponents appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Weis, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
