Spending limits on student-government campaigns are not a violation of free-speech rights, according to a unanimous ruling issued on Friday by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

In the case, a student at the University of Montana challenged the $100 cap on spending that the institution imposed on student elections after he was denied office for exceeding that limit. The student, Aaron Flint, sued the university on the grounds that the limit was an unconstitutional violation of free speech, as courts have ruled in cases involving spending caps in local, state, and federal elections.

Mr. Flint’s lawyer, James Bopp Jr., said that the same standard should apply for elections at public universities as in races for public office in those broader jurisdictions.

The appeals court disagreed, ruling that the university is different from other state entities because of its educational mission.

“Imposing limits on candidate spending requires student candidates to focus on desirable qualities such as the art of persuasion, public speaking, and answering questions face-to-face with one’s potential constituents,” the decision said. “Students are forced to campaign personally, wearing out their shoe leather rather than wearing out a parent’s — or an activist organization’s — pocketbook.”

Mr. Bopp said he would appeal the ruling. —Elizabeth F. Farrell