Cornelius v. Naacp Legal Defense And Educational Fund, Inc.

473 U.S. 788 (1985)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

The Combined Federal Campaign (CFC) is an annual charitable fundraising drive conducted in the federal workplace during working hours largely through the voluntary efforts of federal employees. Participating organizations confined their fundraising activities to a 30-word statement submitted by them for inclusion in the literature. Contributions may take the form of a payroll deduction or a lump-sum payment made to a designated agency or the general Campaign fund. Undesignated contributions are distributed on the local level by a private umbrella organization to certain participating organizations. Government employees contribute in excess of $100 million to charitable organizations each year. The CFC was established to bring order to the process. The CFC then implemented guidelines where only tax-exempt, nonprofit charitable organizations that were supported by contributions from the public and that provided direct health and welfare services to individuals were eligible to participate in the CFC. Ps who are all political activists wanted in on the deal. Each P attempts to influence public policy through one or more of the following means: political activity, advocacy, lobbying, or litigation on behalf of others. Ps claimed the 'direct services' requirement violated the First Amendment and the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment. The District Court found that the 'direct services' requirement was too vague to satisfy the strict standards of specificity required by the First Amendment. Ps were allowed to participate in the 1982 and 1983 Campaigns. Another lawsuit was initiated over distribution of local undesignated funds. A new executive Order limited participation to 'voluntary, charitable, health and welfare agencies that provide or support direct health and welfare services to individuals or their families.' Ps brought this third action challenging their threatened exclusion under the new Executive Order as a violation of their First Amendment right to solicit charitable contributions and that the denial of the right to participate in undesignated funds violates their rights under the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment. The District Court dismissed the vagueness challenge and the equal protection claim on ripeness grounds. The District Court held that Ps exclusion from the designated contribution portion of the CFC was unconstitutional. It held the CFC was a 'limited public forum' and the exclusion was content-based. The regulation was not narrowly drawn to support a compelling governmental interest. It granted summary judgment to Ps and enjoined the denial of Ps' pending or future applications to participate in the solicitation of designated contributions. The judgment was affirmed. It held that the Government restrictions were not reasonable and therefore failed even the least exacting scrutiny. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.