Christian Legal Society v. Martinez

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.

A divided Supreme Court held today that 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 June 28, 2010, a divided Supreme Court affirmed and remanded the case in an opinion by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The court limited the ruling to whether a public college could limit access to a student organization forum when the policy requires that "all comers" participate in the organization's activity.

"In accord with the District Court and the Court of Appeals, we reject CLS's First Amendment challenge. Compliance with Hastings' all-comers policy, we conclude, is a reasonable, viewpoint-neutral condition on access to the student-organization forum," Ginsburg wrote. "In requiring CLS—in common with all other student organizations — to choose between welcoming all students and forgoing the benefits ofofficial recognition, we hold, Hastings did not transgress constitutional limitations."

She added, "CLS, it bears emphasis, seeks not parity with other organizations, but a preferential exemption from Hastings’ policy. The First Amendment shields CLS against state prohibition of the organization's expressive activity, however exclusionary that activity may be.But CLS enjoys no constitutional right to state subvention of its selectivity."

Justice Samuel Alito dissented, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Justices John Paul Stevens and Anthony Kennedy each concurred.

"The proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express 'the thought thatwe hate,' Alito wrote, adding: "Today's decision rests on a very different principle: no freedom for expression that offends prevailing standards of political correctness in our country's institutions of higher learning."

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.