Two weeks ago, the United States Supreme Court unanimously concluded that the Solomon Amendment was completely constitutional. The amendment was a response to law schools who denied military recruiters equal access to graduating students. Congress ingeniously wrote the law to hit universities where it hurt most: funding. By withholding funding to an entire university for the actions of its law school, the federal government ensured that the consequences would be too great for a law school to deny military recruiters. The schools were forced to turn to their only option and sued Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

The court’s strong response of upholding the amendment upset all levels of legal academia. Professor Paula Johnson was a listed plaintiff in the case, Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, which makes Syracuse University College of Law among the respected law schools who were embarrassingly defeated in their effort to challenge the United States Military’s ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy regarding gays and lesbians.

The SU College of Law did not respond to requests for interviews regarding the Solomon Amendment or the Supreme Court case.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote the unanimous opinion and delivered the schools a ‘lesson in law.’ In an almost condescending tone, the chief justice explained in simple English how the amendment did not violate the free speech of the schools.

‘As a general matter, the Solomon Amendment regulates conduct, not speech,’ Roberts clarified. ‘It affects what law schools must do – afford equal access to military recruiters – not what they may or may not say.’

I recall watching a mock hearing for the case on C-SPAN, in which Rumsfeld’s defense team argued before a panel of law professors and journalists. At that point it became obvious to me that the case was going to result in a victory for the federal government. Yet, the overwhelming vote, 8-0 (Justice Sandra Day O’Connor left the court prior to the vote and Justice Samuel A. Alito did not hear the case), signaled something greater than an easy decision for the court: America’s highest court is not seeing eye to eye with the top law schools in this country.

Keith Bybee, associate professor of political science and constitutional law at the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, said there is a spectrum of reasons for why the schools pursued a suit that was destined to be defeated.

Yet, Bybee attributes the motivation to one basis – ‘That is (the purpose of) constitutional law.’ This proposal makes the most sense. The law schools were challenging the Constitution and the Supreme Court to clearly articulate the constitutional standpoint on whether allowing a recruiter equal access is an infringement on free speech. The Supreme Court passed this test with a strong opinion authored by the chief justice dissecting the legality of the amendment.

This brings us back to the SU College of Law and other accredited law schools that practice non-discrimination and what they can do next. Roberts made it clear there was nothing wrong with helping students organize protests. But what he did make clear is that to get federal money, you must let the federal government’s military have opportunities ‘at least equal in quality and scope,’ to other recruiters.

In one of the strongest points against F.A.I.R.’s argument, Roberts said, ‘We have held that high school students can appreciate the difference between speech a school sponsors and speech the school permits because it is legally required to do so. Surely students have not lost that ability by the time they get to law school.’

With hope, law school academics learned a thing or two from their experience with the new chief justice. Now we can only wait and see what the SU College of Law and its colleagues will do to preserve their non-discrimination policy. If we are lucky, maybe they will listen to Roberts.