Swope v. Lubbers
United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan
560 F. Supp. 1328 (1983)
- Written by Mike Begovic, JD
Facts
Grand Valley State College (Grand Valley) (defendants) collected a registration fee of $15.00 from students, which coalesced into a general fund, a portion of which was allocated for extracurricular student activities such as the screening of films. Grand Valley had not adopted any official guidelines or administrative procedure for determining which films could be shown. Based on student interest in X-rated films, the student senate at Grand Valley (the senate) supplied a list of 25 films, which included the film Inserts, an X-rated film about a film director’s foray into pornographic movies following the onset of talkies in the 1930s. After several discussions with the senate, Grand Valley administrators ultimately decided that although Grand Valley would not ban a showing of the film, it would not allow funds to be used for the screening of X-rated films. Timothy Swope and several other Grand Valley students (the students) filed a suit seeking temporary injunctive relief to prevent Grand Valley from refusing to allocate funds for the screening. The students alleged violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Grand Valley argued that because it was not outright banning a screening of the film, its decision did not warrant constitutional scrutiny.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Hillman, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 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.