Court will hear student religious group case (Dec. 7, 2009)

The Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether a state law school can deny recognition to a religious student organization where the group requires its officers and voting members to agree with its core religious beliefs, thereby excluding gay and lesbian students.

The University of California Hastings College of Law has a policy forbidding discrimination based on "race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, disability, age, sex or sexual orientation" in all of its programs.

Several years ago, leaders of the law school's chapter of the Christian Legal Society said the group would no longer accept gay or lesbian students or others who do not adhere to traditional Christian beliefs. They cited the national policy of the Christian Legal Society, which says: "In view of the clear dictates of Scripture, unrepentant participation in and advocacy of a sexually immoral lifestyle is inconsistent with an affirmation of the Statement of Faith" set by the organization.

The law school said the CLS chapter would lose its status as an official student group, which meant the university would no longer pay travel costs for the group's leaders to attend national meetings. The CLS group also lost its right to use reserved rooms for meetings, and the school's Web site to promote itself to other students.

CLS filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, contending that the school violated its members' right to expressive association, free speech, free exercise of religion, and equal protection of the law.

The judge upheld the college's nondiscrimination policy as an acceptable regulation of CLS's conduct, rather than regulation of its speech.

A three-judge panel on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.

"Hastings imposes an open membership rule on all student groups -- all groups must accept all comers as voting members even if those individuals disagree with the mission of the group," the court ruled in an unsigned decision. "The conditions on recognition are therefore viewpoint neutral and reasonable."

On Dec. 7, 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.

Question presented: Whether a public university law school may deny school funding and other benefits to a religious student organization because the group requires its officers and voting members to agree with its core religious viewpoints.