Initial reaction seems to indicate that the Court was leaning towards upholding the Solomon amendment. From reports, the only justice who might be receptive to the schools' argument that they shouldn't be forced to allow military recruiters on campus was Souter. For those who weren't sure whether or not Roberts was truly conservative, he seems to have showed a little more leg in this oral argument. As Tony Mauro reports,

Rosenkranz came under heavy attack Tuesday from several justices, including Roberts, whose questioning showed his conservative stripes perhaps more than in any oral argument since he became chief justice in September.

Roberts said the law, passed in 1994, “doesn’t require anything” from universities in terms of support because they can simply choose to refuse federal money. But universities contend that because the law allows the government to withdraw federal funds from an entire university, even if only the law school refuses equal access to military recruiters, that is an impossible choice that amounts to coercion.

Roberts shrugged off that argument Tuesday, implying that if universities really felt strongly about the military’s policy regarding homosexuality, they would pay the price of losing federal money institution-wide.

Rosenkranz also countered that under the Court’s precedents, the government may not use the threat of cutting off funds to force recipients to surrender their constitutional rights. “All bets are off if there is a superseding right,” he said.

Roberts fired back that there is also a “right to raise the military.” He and other justices seemed to view the Article I power of Congress to “raise and support armies” as a justification for the recruiting statute that outweighs law schools’ First Amendment objections.

Roberts also knocked down another of the law schools’ arguments, telling Rosenkranz that “everyone knows” that the policies of a recruiter like the military don’t necessarily reflect the views of the host institution.

At another point, Justice John Paul Stevens asked Clement if a university could “symbolically” register its objections by giving military recruiters equal access but at a different campus location from other recruiters. Roberts interjected, in a mocking tone, “Sort of separate but equal.”

I knew I was going to enjoy reading about Justice Roberts' participation in oral arguments. A defeat for the military in this case would have been a disaster for military recruiting at colleges and secondary schools. I suspect the Supreme Court would not like to deliver that sort of blow to military recruiting in a time of war. (Links via How Appealing)

UPDATE: Dahlia Lithwick in Slate credits Scalia, not Roberts, with the crack about "Sort of separate but equal." I guess it's hard to tell from the audio tape. Even Lithwick, who doesn't seem that favorably disposed to the Solomon amendment and the military, senses that the schools are headed for a bad defeat.

Suddenly one can't help but notice that all the conservative justices have gotten quiet while the liberals are taking turns beating on counsel. That can't be a good sign. Says Breyer: "Speech is on their side. They are trying to recruit!"

Clement's rebuttal is a beautiful thing. He quickly explains that no student can confuse a military recruiter's speech with the law school's. Also that any protest can be re-characterized as free speech or free association, opening the door to allowing law schools, if they so choose, to disregard bedrock federal anti-discrimination laws. It's a clever approach—painting the Solomon Amendment as an anti-discrimination law, as opposed to an aggressive counter-punch at anti-discrimination diehards. A series of culture clashes underlies this case: The Army versus the Ivies; brawn versus brain; raw politics versus political correctness. But none of that really matters. You want the truth? You can't handle the truth. The law schools have no case.

She envisages a 8:1 or 9:0 decision. If it is that clearcut in their minds, perhaps they can churn this decision out before O'Connor leaves the Court.