Stanley v. McGrath

Following the publication of a controversial issue of a student-run newspaper, the Minnesota Daily (the Daily), the University of Minnesota (Minnesota) (defendant) took measures to change the funding system for the newspaper. The controversial edition featured numerous cartoons, articles, and advertisements satirizing religion, ethnic groups, social groups, and various customs. Prior to the change, the Daily received funding from a compulsory fee that Minnesota collected from all students. Following the controversial issue, and amid public outcry from the student body and pressure from the Minnesota state legislature, Minnesota’s board of regents (the board) voted to change the funding system to allow students to obtain a refund of the fee. Minnesota claimed that it was motivated by concerns expressed by its students. Several members of the board testified that they did not think students should be forced to support a vulgar and sacrilegious newspaper. Minnesota only implemented a change at its main campus, where the Daily operated. Catherine Stanley and other former editors of the Daily (the Daily staff) (plaintiffs) brought an action against Minnesota, alleging that its decision to change the funding system was based in part on opposition to the content of the controversial edition, in violation of the First Amendment. A district court concluded that no violation had occurred based on two key findings: (1) the overall funding for the Daily had increased because the compulsory student fee had been raised over three years; and (2) Minnesota was motivated by the desire to respond to students’ concerns about funding the paper. The Daily staff appealed.