March 6 (Bloomberg) -- The Bush administration can demand that universities give military recruiters the same campus access as other employers, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, rejecting free- speech arguments by law schools opposed to the armed services' ban on acknowledged homosexuals.

The justices unanimously upheld a government policy of threatening to cut off federal funds, in some cases hundreds of millions of dollars, from universities that don't provide equal access. The ruling reversed a lower court decision that said the policy violated university speech and associational rights.

``A military recruiter's mere presence on campus does not violate a law school's right to associate, regardless of how repugnant the law school considers the recruiter's message,'' Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the court.

The decision boosts the Bush administration as it struggles to maintain recruiting levels to wage wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's a defeat for Harvard, Yale, Columbia and other universities that accused the government of intruding on academic freedom.

The dispute centered on the so-called Solomon Amendment, first enacted by Congress in 1994 to pressure universities into allowing military recruiters on campus. The Bush administration gave the law renewed emphasis after the 2001 terrorist attacks, insisting that military representatives get the same treatment as other recruiters. Congress later wrote that equal-access requirement into law.

36 Law Schools

A coalition of 36 law schools sued to challenge the equal- access policy, saying the schools have campus policies of not assisting employers who discriminate based on race, sex or sexual orientation. The law schools argued that, at a minimum, they shouldn't have to actively help military recruiters by distributing their literature or arranging interviews with students.

Roberts said the policy doesn't force schools to adopt any message with which they disagree. He said schools are free to criticize the ``don't ask, don't tell'' policy on gays in the military, as long as they provide equal access.

``The Solomon Amendment neither limits what law schools may say nor requires them to say anything,'' Roberts wrote.

Roberts said the focus of the law was conduct, not speech, making the case different from past ``compelled speech'' fights.

``Compelling a law school that sends scheduling e-mails for other recruiters to send one for a military recruiter is simply not the same as forcing a student to pledge allegiance or forcing a Jehovah's Witness to display the motto, `Live Free or Die,''' Roberts wrote.

Unanimous Ruling

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., who took his seat after the court heard arguments, didn't participate. The other seven justices all joined Roberts's opinion without additional comment. All three of Roberts's majority opinions since he joined the court last year have been unanimous.

One of the opponents of the Solomon Amendment, Georgetown University Professor Chai Feldblum, said the ruling should serve as a ``call to arms'' for schools to encourage protests when military recruiters come to campus.

``The Supreme Court has made it very clear the way to deal with the discriminatory message of the military is for the law schools to engage in more speech, including helping their students engage in protests,'' said Feldblum, who serves on the board of the Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, the association of law schools that organized the suit.

A Pentagon spokeswoman, Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Ellen Krenke, said the military isn't seeking to curtail speech rights.

`Even Playing Field'

``We simply want to be able to compete on an even playing field for the best and brightest that our nation's universities have to offer,'' she said in an e-mail.

The high court said Congress could have gone even further and directly required universities to accommodate military recruiters, rather than making access a condition of federal funding. Roberts, quoting from an earlier case, said Congress has ``broad and sweeping'' power under the Constitution to maintain the military.

The federal government provides almost $35 billion a year to universities through research grants, government contracts and other sources, according to the American Association of University Professors. The financial stake was one reason almost every law school has agreed to give equal access to the military.

The Defense Department has listed only three schools -- New York Law School, Vermont Law School in South Royalton, Vermont, and William Mitchell College of Law in St. Paul, Minnesota -- as being in violation of the Solomon Amendment. All three schools are independent institutions, so their actions didn't jeopardize funding for any other university departments.

Harvard and Yale

The Solomon Amendment once included a threat to withhold student financial aid. That provision was removed in 2000.

Law schools at Stanford, Georgetown and New York University were among those challenging the Solomon Amendment. Harvard, Yale and Columbia joined a friend-of-the-court brief backing the law schools.

The Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had said the Solomon Amendment probably violates the Constitution by limiting university freedom of association and forcing schools to adopt a message with which many of them disagree. The court also said the government hadn't produced any evidence that the requirement helps recruit lawyers into the military.

The case is Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, 04-1152.

To contact the reporter on this story: Greg Stohr in Washington at gstohr@bloomberg.net.

Last Updated: March 6, 2006 15:31 EST