On March 6 the Supreme Court handed down a unanimous decision upholding the federal government’s Solomon Amendment, a 1996 law requiring universities that receive federal funds to give military recruiters the same access to students that other on-campus recruiters have.

This case is important for several reasons and it ought to encourage careful public debate. Its significance rests in what it demonstrates about the current court and in the critical questions about government power that the case left unanswered.

If the schools do not allow the access prescribed by the Solomon Amendment, they lose federal money. So, schools that want to require all recruiters on their campus to practice nondiscriminatory sexual orientation policies in hiring lose funding when they deny access to military recruiters.

Law schools sued the government, arguing that the Solomon Amendment violated the First Amendment freedoms of speech and association. Their argument was that by accepting federal funding and being forced to allow military recruitment, schools were being required to endorse the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy toward gays.

The court’s unanimous opinion against the law schools stressed two things.

First, the justices said that the policy regulated conduct, not speech. Therefore, the First Amendment protection for freedom of speech was not involved.

Second, the justices argued that the policy did not require the schools to do anything or to refrain from doing anything. The impact of the law was that if schools chose to act in ways that the government did not like, the government would simply withhold funding. This is called a “carrot” or the “power of the purse,” and it is a tool often employed by government.

It is amazing that the entire court agreed this case involved conduct rather than speech. There was no dissent on an issue that has always involved vigorous debate among the justices.

Since the 1960s, the court has considered whether armbands are speech or conduct, whether burning a flag is speech or conduct, whether funding abortions is speech or conduct. The opinion in this case was written by Chief Justice John Roberts and it is a testament to his ability to persuade and to build coalitions that no dissent emerged on this point.

The willingness of all the justices to accept the argument that withholding funds is simply withholding a “carrot” – it is not coercive – is also amazing.

In constitutional terms, the argument that the court avoided is called “unconstitutional conditions.” When may the government say “you may exercise your constitutional right, but you will pay for it”? In this case, “you may exercise your constitutional right to forbid the military recruiters, but you will lose funding.”

In a hypothetical example, the issue emerges more dramatically. “You may exercise your right to criticize the government, but you will not receive Social Security.” There is tremendous debate about this doctrine in legal circles and on the Supreme Court. Yet, again, there was no dissent.

Supreme Court cases are never the end of an issue. The decisions justices hand down should always encourage our debate and encourage our involvement in government decisions. Even if the court was right in its decision, it still does not mean that the policy the government advocated in the Solomon Amendment was a wise policy. We have to challenge ourselves on the central issue: What is the job of government?

Some argue that government acts legitimately when it uses its power to encourage people to act in specific ways. But, the framers of the Constitution were quite adamant that government, especially in the areas of rights such as speech and association, ought to refrain from using the majority’s power against the minority.

Others argue that government should not busy itself shaping our behavior but rather should limit itself to protecting us from harm. In an example often attributed to Abraham Lincoln, I have the right to swing my arm wherever I want to, up until I hit the bridge of your nose.

Government should limit itself to protecting us from hurting each other. But this can be a rather thin view of government. Are we really sure we want to allow that much freedom?

This debate is critical for all of us because as government grows, the power of government’s “purse” becomes stronger and stronger.