Colleges and universities may bar U.S. military recruiters from their campuses without risking the loss of federal funds after an appellate court struck down a federal law Monday requiring institutions of higher education to provide access to military recruiters.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia barred the government from enforcing the Solomon Amendment, a 1995 federal law that threatens the loss of federal funding from any university that does not allow military recruiters the same access to students as corporate recruiters.

A stricter interpretation of the Solomon Amendment by the Department of Defense in 2002 prodded many schools to admit military recruiters, who had been barred because of the armed forces’ ban on openly homosexual individuals serving in the military.

The reinterpretation also provoked a series of lawsuits nationwide, led primarily by law schools. A coalition of law schools and law school faculty, which received the support of numerous Georgetown professors, brought the suit that led to onday’s court decision.

The court ruled 2-1 that the Solomon Amendment violated universities’ First Amendment rights of free expression and association. Its decision relied heavily on the 2000 ruling by the Supreme Court declaring that the Boy Scouts had a constitutional right to exclude homosexuals.

University spokeswoman Laura Cavender said that Georgetown’s administration has not yet decided what, if any, actions to take with regard to military recruiters’ access to the main campus and Law Center.

As a member of the American Association of Law Schools, the Law Center has a nondiscrimination policy that forbids it from hosting recruiters from organizations that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Many law faculty have argued that this nondiscrimination policy conflicts with the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy regarding gay personnel.

Approximately 20 law schools chose to participate anonymously in the lawsuit. Georgetown never disclosed its involvement in the lawsuit. One Georgetown faculty member sits on the board of the Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, which was the lead plaintiff against the federal government in the lawsuit.

The Solomon Amendment has been the focus of several protests and debates at Georgetown over the past two years, and numerous Law Center faculty members had called for the law to be repealed.

Georgetown Law Professor Chai Feldblum, who has been at the forefront of efforts by a national coalition of lawsuits to overturn the Solomon Amendment, said she supported the court’s ruling.

“We have a rule – if an employer cannot sign and say that it will not discriminate based on race or gender or sexual orientation, we don`t allow that employer to recruit,” Feldblum said during an appearance Tuesday on MSNBC’s “The Abrams Report.”We treat all employers the same. Now the military came in with the heavy hand of the government and said, `if you don`t let us recruit, then all of the federal funds that your main campus might get for health care will get yanked.'”

Georgetown has allowed military recruiters at the Law Center since the Solomon Amendment was enacted in 1995, but they maintained a low profile until the stricter interpretation of the law was issued.

One of the nation’s most prominent law schools has already changed its recruiting policies in response to the decision. Harvard Law School Dean Elena Kagan announced Tuesday that the school would return to its former policy of barring military recruiters from campus in the wake of Monday’s ruling.

“I am gratified by this result, and I look forward to the time when all law students will have the opportunity to pursue any legal career they desire,” Kagan said in a statement.

Bill McCoy, assistant director of student organizations and LGBTQ community resources at Georgetown, said that he hopes the court’s decision will motivate the military to reevaluate its policies concerning homosexuals.

“Perhaps if the military takes this decision to reflect on its current practices and changes its policies it will open the door for the queer population here to expand their vocational prospects without having to closet themselves,” McCoy said. “In terms of whether the military will reevaluate its current policies, I am not sure but I do hope so.”

Pentagon officials have voiced serious concerns about efforts to block the Solomon Amendment in the past. Military advoctates have argued that recruiters’ access to law school campuses is crucial if the armed forces are to maintain an active and fair court system.

Judge Ruggero J. Aldisert expressed many of the same concerns in his dissent from the two-judge majority in Monday’s decision.

“If military recruiters are denied the ability to reach students on the same terms as other employers, damage to military recruiting is not simply probable but inevitable,” Aldisert said. “What disturbs me personally and as a judge is that the law schools seem to approach this question as an academic exercise, a question on a constitutional law examination or a moot court topic, with no thought of the effect of their action on the supply of military lawyers and military judges.”

Michael Boucai (LAW ’05), who has helped organize protests against the Solomon Amendment in the past, said he supported the court’s decision.

“There’s no question that the Solomon Amendment infringes on the free speech rights of law schools,” Boucai said. “Since the Solomon Amendment was only thing that prevented [the Law Center] from fully enforcing its non-discrimination policy, I fully expect that, with the Solomon threat removed, the law school will once again bar military recruiters from its campus. The recruiters’ presence, rather than their exclusion, was the aberration.”