Christian Legal Soc. Chapter of Univ. of Cal., Hastings College of Law v. Martinez
The Supreme Court ruled that a public law school could require all official student groups to accept any student as a member or leader, even a Christian group that wanted to exclude students who rejected its religious beliefs or engaged in gay relationships.
Because the school offered the same all-comers rule to every student group without singling out religion, the Court found no First Amendment violation, even though the rule meant the group had to open its doors or give up official recognition and funding.
“CLS, it bears emphasis, seeks not parity with other organizations, but a preferential exemption from Hastings’ policy.”
The majority frames the group's claim as seeking special treatment rather than equal treatment.
How it got here: A federal trial court ruled for the law school on summary judgment; the Ninth Circuit affirmed in a brief opinion; the Christian group asked the Supreme Court to review.
The Case in Depth
What happened
The Christian Legal Society's Hastings chapter required members to sign a statement of faith and refrain from "unrepentant homosexual conduct." When it applied for official student-group status at Hastings College of the Law, the school refused because the group's bylaws excluded students based on religion and sexual orientation, conflicting with the school's policy that recognized groups must accept any student who wants to join.
The question before the Court
Could a public law school require an official Christian student group to accept any student who wanted to join, even those who disagreed with its religious beliefs, as a condition of getting school funding and recognition?
The Court's answer
Yes — the Court ruled that Hastings could require the Christian Legal Society, like every other student group, to accept any student who wanted to join as a condition of official recognition. Because the parties had jointly agreed that this "all-comers" rule — not the school's separate written nondiscrimination policy — was the actual rule at issue, the Court evaluated only that policy and found it a reasonable, evenhanded condition on access to a forum the school created to support extracurricular groups.
The Court also found the policy neutral toward viewpoints, since it applied identically to every group regardless of its message, and treated the group's free-speech and freedom-of-association claims together under the same forgiving standard that applies to limited public forums. The group remained free to organize and speak its message off the school's dime; it just could not get school funding and support while excluding members based on belief.
Curious how the Court got there? See the step-by-step legal reasoning →
Why it matters
Student religious and ideological groups at public colleges that want official recognition and funding may now have to accept members who disagree with their core beliefs, or operate without school support. The ruling gives universities significant leeway to design open-membership rules for recognized clubs, with mixed effects for groups whose whole purpose is limiting membership to the like-minded.
What changes now
The Ninth Circuit's judgment upholding the all-comers policy is affirmed, but the case is sent back so the lower courts can consider, if properly preserved, the group's separate argument that Hastings selectively enforced its policy as a pretext for targeting the group's viewpoint — an issue neither lower court had addressed. That question remains open for further proceedings.
What this does not decide
The Court decided only the constitutionality of the specific all-comers policy the parties stipulated was at issue — not the school's separately written nondiscrimination policy, and not whether the all-comers rule was applied as a pretext to target this group's viewpoint. Both of those questions were left open, with the pretext issue returned to the lower courts.
Concurrences and dissents
Concurrence — Justice Stevens
Justice Stevens agreed fully with the majority but wrote separately to defend the school's separate written Nondiscrimination Policy as also constitutional, responding to the dissent's claim that policy would be plainly unconstitutional if applied. He argued the policy targets discriminatory conduct, not belief, is content-neutral, and that disparate impact on religious groups does not by itself amount to viewpoint discrimination.
Concurrence — Justice Kennedy
Justice Kennedy agreed with the Court's reasoning but emphasized that the all-comers policy would be unconstitutional if it were shown to be designed or used to let students infiltrate a small group and take over its leadership to silence its message, saying the group would have a substantial case on the merits if that were shown. He stressed the policy's role in preserving open, cooperative dialogue among law students.
Dissent — Justice Alito
“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.”The dissent's central objection that the ruling suppresses unpopular viewpoints on campus.
Justice Alito argued the majority mischaracterized the case, ignoring strong evidence that Hastings actually denied recognition under its written Nondiscrimination Policy, which he considered plain viewpoint discrimination against religious groups, and that the 'all-comers' policy was announced later as a pretext. He argued the rule was not reasonable in light of the forum's diversity-promoting purpose and was not clearly viewpoint-neutral given the record of selective enforcement.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The Court held that when a public university creates a limited forum for student groups, it may impose access rules that are reasonable in light of the forum's purposes and neutral toward viewpoint, rather than facing the stricter scrutiny that applies to laws directly compelling private groups to admit unwanted members.
- Because the student group's free-speech and freedom-of-association arguments were closely intertwined — who belongs to the group affects what message it sends — the Court analyzed both claims under this single, more forgiving limited-forum framework rather than treating them separately.
- The Court then asked whether the all-comers rule was reasonable given the forum's goals, finding that it ensured all students could access leadership and social opportunities, avoided forcing the school to police whether an exclusion was based on 'status' or on 'belief,' and reflected a legitimate preference for encouraging encounters across viewpoints.
- The Court also weighed that the group could still meet, recruit, and communicate through channels outside the official program, which lessened the burden created by the access condition.
- Turning to viewpoint neutrality, the Court found the rule textbook neutral because it applied identically to every group regardless of the group's message, and rejected the argument that a policy with a heavier practical effect on some viewpoints becomes viewpoint-based merely because of that unequal impact.
- Concluding that the policy was both reasonable and viewpoint-neutral, the Court rejected the free-speech and association claims, and separately held that a prior decision forecloses a free-exercise challenge to a neutral, generally applicable rule that only incidentally burdens religious conduct.
Doctrinal impact
Cases affected by this decision
Distinguishes Healy v. James
The Court found this case different because the college there denied recognition explicitly due to disagreement with the group's views.
Reaffirms Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va.
The Court relied on this case's rule that forums must be run in a reasonable, viewpoint-neutral way.
Distinguishes Board of Regents of Univ. of Wis. System v. Southworth
The Court said this case's funding-referendum problem does not apply to an evenly applied all-comers rule.