Here is the synopsis of our sample research paper on Widmar v. Vincent. Have the paper e-mailed to you 24/7/365.
Essay / Research Paper Abstract
A 3 page brief of this Supreme Court Case. The author outlines the judicial history of the case, as well as the facts, issues, rule, reasoning and holding. No additional sources are listed.
Page Count:
3 pages (~225 words per page)
File: AM2_PPrlgSep.rtf
Buy This Term Paper »
Unformatted sample text from the term paper:
Judicial History Widmar v. Vincent was argued before the Supreme Court on October 6, 1981 and decided December 8, 1981. The issues
surrounding the case were initially decided on in Federal District Court after the student group sued the University of Missouri. The District Court, pointing to the Establishment Clause of
the First Amendment, ruled that a university regulation prohibiting the use of university facilities for religious purposes was not a violation of a student groups First Amendment rights to free
exercise of religion or freedom of speech. The student group appealed that decision and the Court of Appeals reversed it finding that the university regulation discriminated against religious speech
and clarifying that the Establishment Clause used as the basis of the District Courts decision did not "bar a policy of equal access". The case was then taken to
the Supreme Court by the university. The Supreme Court ruled that the universitys "exclusionary policy" was a violation of the "fundamental principle that a state regulation of speech should
be content-neutral". Facts This case involves
the rights of a registered student religious group to use the facilities of the University of Missouri, facilities that were customarily generally available for student groups. Although originally allowed
use of the facilities the group was then denied said use based upon an existing university regulation prohibiting university facilities "for purposes of religious worship or religious teaching." The
District Court upheld university regulations, finding that not only could the State "not provide facilities for religious use without giving prohibited support to an institution of religion" but that "religious
...