561 U.S. 661 (*2010*)
Hastings College of the Law is a public law school within the University of California system.1 It maintains a Registered Student Organization program that grants official recognition to student groups.2 Recognized groups receive benefits including eligibility for school funds drawn from mandatory student activity fees.3 They also receive use of school facilities and channels of communication such as bulletin boards and email lists.4 Finally, they receive permission to use the school's name and logo.5 In exchange, all RSOs must comply with Hastings' Nondiscrimination Policy.6 Hastings interprets this policy to require every recognized group to accept any student as a member or leader regardless of status or beliefs.7
At the beginning of the 2004-2005 academic year, Hastings students formed the Christian Legal Society chapter by affiliating with the national Christian Legal Society.8 The chapter adopted bylaws requiring members and officers to sign a Statement of Faith.9 The bylaws also required members to conduct their lives in accordance with prescribed principles.10 One such principle is the belief that sexual activity should occur only within marriage between a man and a woman.11 CLS interpreted its bylaws to exclude students who engage in unrepentant homosexual conduct.12 It also excluded students who hold religious convictions different from those in the Statement of Faith.13 On September 17, 2004, CLS submitted an application for RSO status together with the required bylaws.14
Hastings rejected the application because the bylaws excluded students on the basis of religion and sexual orientation.15 CLS formally requested an exemption from the Nondiscrimination Policy.16 Hastings declined the request.17 CLS then filed suit under 42 U.S.C. §1983 against Hastings officials. The suit alleged violations of its First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to free speech, expressive association, and free exercise of religion.18
The parties later stipulated that Hastings requires all RSOs to allow any student to participate, become a member, or seek leadership positions regardless of status or beliefs.19 On cross-motions for summary judgment, the District Court for the Northern District of California ruled for Hastings.20 The Ninth Circuit affirmed in a brief opinion. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.21
After the denial of RSO status, CLS operated independently during the 2004-2005 academic year.22 It held weekly Bible studies, social events, lectures, and banquets. The number of students attending its meetings doubled the following year.23 Hastings offered CLS access to school facilities for meetings.24 It also offered generally available bulletin boards and chalkboards for announcements.25 However, CLS did not receive RSO-specific benefits.26
Whether the parties are bound by their joint stipulation that Hastings requires all registered student organizations to allow any student to participate, become a member, or seek leadership positions regardless of status or beliefs?27
Yes. The parties jointly stipulated that Hastings requires that registered student organizations allow any student to participate, become a member, or seek leadership positions in the organization, regardless of her status or beliefs.31 CLS's attempt to escape the stipulation and argue instead about the Nondiscrimination Policy as written directly contradicts the parties' formal concession that the all-comers requirement governs the RSO program.32
The parties are bound by the stipulation, so the Court considers only whether conditioning access to the RSO forum on compliance with an all-comers policy violates the Constitution.33
Whether Hastings' all-comers policy is a reasonable, viewpoint-neutral condition on access to the Registered Student Organization forum?34
In a limited public forum, a governmental entity may impose restrictions on speech that are reasonable in light of the purposes of the forum and viewpoint neutral. The same framework governs both free-speech and expressive-association claims arising in that setting.35
Yes. Hastings' all-comers policy is reasonable because it ensures that leadership, educational, and social opportunities afforded by RSOs are available to all students.36 It helps police the written terms of the Nondiscrimination Policy without inquiring into motivations.37 It encourages tolerance and cooperation among students with diverse backgrounds.38
It incorporates state-law discrimination proscriptions.39 The policy is viewpoint neutral because it draws no distinction between groups based on their message or perspective.40 It targets only the act of rejecting would-be members without reference to the reasons for that rejection.41 Application of the limited-public-forum test to the stipulated facts shows that CLS may exclude any person for any reason if it forgoes the benefits of official recognition.42
Substantial alternative channels remain open for CLS communication.43
Hastings' all-comers policy is a reasonable, viewpoint-neutral condition on access to the RSO forum and therefore does not transgress First Amendment limitations.44
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Stevens concurs in the judgment upholding the all-comers policy.45 He notes that the Court correctly confines its discussion to the narrow issue presented by the record.46 He joins the opinion without reservation.47
Justice Stevens explains that the Nondiscrimination Policy contains boilerplate language used by institutions across the country.48 The policy prohibits unlawful discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, disability, age, sex or sexual orientation.49 CLS was unwilling to admit members unless they affirmed certain Christian doctrines.50
CLS also refused to admit students who engaged in unrepentant homosexual conduct.51 Justice Stevens concludes that both policies are plainly legitimate.52 They are content and viewpoint neutral.53
They regulate conduct rather than belief.54 They advance pedagogical objectives of tolerance and equal access.55 The policy does not single out religious groups for disfavored treatment.56
It operates within the limited RSO forum.57
Justice Kennedy concurs that the all-comers policy is a permissible effort to preserve the value of the RSO forum.58 The policy applies equally to all groups and views.59 It facilitates interactions among students with differing perspectives.60
It avoids the divisiveness that would arise if student organizations could require avowals of particular beliefs.61 It also avoids disclosures of private conduct as conditions of membership.62 A law school furthers its objectives by allowing broad diversity in registered student organizations.63
These objectives may be better achieved if students can act cooperatively to learn from and teach each other.64 A vibrant dialogue is not possible if students wall themselves off from opposing points of view.65 The school's policy therefore represents a permissible effort to preserve the value of its forum.66
Joined by Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Scalia, And Justice Thomas
Justice Alito dissents on the ground that the accept-all-comers policy is not reasonable in light of the RSO forum's purpose.67 The forum's purpose is promoting a diversity of viewpoints among registered groups.68 The policy is not viewpoint neutral because it was announced as a pretext to justify viewpoint discrimination against CLS.69
Hastings denied CLS registration under the Nondiscrimination Policy.70 Only after litigation began did Hastings unveil the accept-all-comers policy.71 The Court does not address the constitutionality of the policy Hastings actually invoked.72
The Court also ignores strong evidence that the accept-all-comers policy is not viewpoint neutral.73 Brushing aside inconvenient precedent, the Court arms public educational institutions with a weapon for suppressing the speech of unpopular groups.74
Whether Hastings selectively enforces its all-comers policy?75
No. The selective enforcement claim was not addressed by the lower courts.79 The District Court and the Ninth Circuit focused solely on the facial validity of the all-comers policy under the limited public forum framework.80 The Supreme Court declines to consider the claim in the first instance.81 The case is remanded for the Ninth Circuit to consider the argument if, and to the extent, it is preserved.82
The selective-enforcement claim is remanded for consideration by the Ninth Circuit if, and to the extent, it is preserved.83