University of Utah v. Shurtleff

Facts of the Case For years the University of Utah enforced a policy prohibiting students, faculty and staff from possessing firearms on campus or while “conducting university business off campus.”  The campus includes not only classrooms and offices but also an assortment of facilities ranging from an extensive health sciences complex to a preschool. In addition, it includes facilities frequented by guests of the University, the football stadium, a 15,000-seat indoor arena, and cultural and entertainment centers.

Facts Continued  In 2001, when Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff issued Opinion in which he stated that a Utah Department of Human Resource Management rule forbidding state employees to carry guns in state facilities violated Utah's Uniform Firearms Act. In response, the University sued the Attorney General in the United States District Court), seeking a declaration that Utah law does not prevent it from enforcing its firearms policy. any interference with the policy would violate its right to academic freedom as guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.   

Initial Ruling The district court denied the Attorney General's motion to dismiss and granted the University's motion for summary judgment.  The University's firearms policy was not contrary to Utah law. The court reasoned that the Uniform Firearms Act merely “established uniform criminal penalties for” those who violated Utah's firearms laws and that the Concealed Weapon Act merely “addressed the validity of a concealed weapons permit.” It concluded that the University's firearms policy was not inconsistent with either of these statutes because the policy applied only to students, faculty, and staff who voluntarily chose to associate themselves with the University.

New Law Passes In 2004, the Utah Legislature passed, a statute prohibiting state and local entities from enacting or enforcing any ordinance, regulation, rule, or policy that in “any way inhibits or restricts the possession or use of firearms on either public or private property” (Senate Bill 48).  Both the University and the Attorney General suggested that the district court's decision on that point had been rendered moot, obviating the need for this court to review the impacts of the new law.

Questions??? What are the factors at play here? What is the University’s stake at in this ruling? What is the Attorney General’s stake in this ruling? What was the final outcome?

Where the conflict lies  The University wants to maintain that it is an autonomous entity with the authority to disregard Utah law that interferes with its internal academic affairs   The Attorney General maintains that the University has no power or autonomy under the constitution that would permit it to disregard state law. 

Part 1 (Contact or Law) Courts conclude that the University's firearms policy is most appropriately viewed as a contract with its students and employees. It is therefore not legislative in nature. Because the policy is not legislative in nature, its adoption by the University did not violate the constitutional directive that only the legislature shall “define the lawful use of arms.”

Part 2 (University Autonomy) The courts conclusion was that the University is subject to legislative control, and therefore cannot enforce its firearms policy in contravention of state law.

Part 3 (Academic Freedom) Policy considerations, no matter how persuasive, cannot dictate a contrary interpretation. The Utah Constitution does not grant the University authority to have firearms policies in contravention of legislative enactments.

Dissent The majority fails to recognize the University's authority to establish any policy whatsoever relating to on-campus firearm possession by its students and employees. Under its analysis, the University may not subject a student to academic discipline for flashing his pistol to a professor in class. Because I believe the majority's conclusion is inconsistent with the authority that the state constitution grants the University as a corporate entity, I respectfully dissent.- Justice Parrish

Affects on Higher Education University law must not be in contradiction to any state or federal laws. Higher education institutions must be mindful of laws not only currently established but ones that will come up in the future. Regardless of the academic mission or duty to care for their students, No decision an institution makes can trump state law.