UNVL Recognizes Associational Rights 

Timothy M. Burke, Fraternal Law Partners, tburke@manleyburke.com

Recently, the National Panhellenic Conference (NPC) was alerted by one of its member organizations to a communication issued by the Office of Student Rights and Responsibilities at the University of Nevada Las Vagas (UNLV). The notice—characterized as a “courtesy notice…offered as a preventative warning” aimed at preventing potential violations of university policy—was intended to promote student safety and compliance with university regulations. Among the concerns highlighted were the sharing of “family bottles” at Big/Little reveal events involving students of mixed legal drinking age, and Big Brother/Little Sister programs that may include hazing or other misconduct.

Certainly, to the extent that these warnings addressed underage drinking, hazing, or other dangerous or prohibited conduct, they were both appropriate and consistent with national sorority and fraternity policies, local chapter rules, university codes of conduct, and state law. These activities pose legitimate risks to student safety and university integrity and merit proactive communication and enforcement.

However, the final portion of UNLV’s message raised significant constitutional concerns. The notice warned against any “fraternization with unrecognized student organizations,” referring to groups previously sanctioned and derecognized by the university due to misconduct (and who are now alleged to be operating underground). UNLV stated that any “operations with or participation in events, socials, and general communication” with members of these unrecognized groups could constitute a violation. The warning went so far as to say that if “a recognized organization has even two individuals from [an unrecognized group] at any of their events, formals, socials, etc. they …[they] are participating in a joint event with the unrecognized organization.” (Emphasis added.) In other words, mere association with members of an unrecognized group could be considered a “joint event,” implying a violation by the recognized group.

Both the U.S. Supreme Court and the Nevada Supreme Court have made clear that freedom of association is a fundamental constitutional right, and that guilt by association cannot be grounds for punishment absent unlawful conduct.

In Healy v. James, 408 U.S. 169 (1972), the U.S. Supreme Court held that students seeking recognition as a chapter of the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) could not be denied recognition merely because of the controversial reputation of SDS at other campuses. The Court emphasized that state universities must uphold constitutional freedoms, including the right of association, even when dealing with unpopular or disruptive groups—so long as the specific group at hand complies with reasonable university rules.

Likewise, in Burgess v. Storey County Board of Commissioners, 116 Nev. 121 (2000), the Nevada Supreme Court overturned a local government’s denial of a brothel license based solely on the applicant’s associations with members of the Hell’s Angels. Quoting Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609 (1984), the court affirmed that the right to associate for purposes of protected First Amendment activity—speech, assembly, petition, and religion—is “an indispensable means of preserving other individual liberties.”

In light of these concerns, and at NPC’s request, Manley Burke reached out to UNLV’s Office of General Counsel to address the overly broad language and protect the associational rights of students affiliated with NPC member organizations. An Assistant General Counsel responded promptly and took the concerns seriously. After reviewing the matter, the University issued a revised statement that significantly clarified and corrected the earlier guidance.

The updated version no longer suggests “Fraternization” with unrecognized groups, or their members, is a potential violation. In bold font, the revised statement, which was emailed to the community on March 14, 2025, clarifies:

Earlier communication that individual members of [unrecognized groups] could not attend a sorority event (i.e., formal, philanthropy) was misstated. It was never the intent to prevent an individual from attending a formal/philanthropy event hosted by a registered student organization or to prevent any individuals from having a relationship with anyone.

(Emphasis in original.)

To be clear, the University had an absolute right to warn against activities that may be dangerous or could constitute violations of reasonable university regulations that did not interfere with associational freedoms. It even was appropriate to caution about underground groups that lost recognition due to dangerous misconduct. But while the University continues to caution students that attending events where hazing or underage drinking occurs is still not permitted (and could constitute a reportable conduct violation), it no longer suggests that simply associating with members of an unrecognized group is, by itself, a conduct violation.

This outcome reflects a balanced approach: UNLV acted responsibly in warning against dangerous and prohibited behavior, but it also demonstrated respect for constitutional limits on its authority. The University’s willingness to revise its communication in response to student and organizational concerns is commendable and reflects a constructive path forward.

As such, much appreciation is extended to UNLV’s legal department for its professionalism and cooperation, as this sort of working relationship only reaffirms all parties’ commitments to both student safety and constitutional rights on campus.