Christian Legal Society Chapter of the University of California v. Martinez
The Supreme Court ruled that a public law school could require a Christian student group to open its membership and leadership to all students, as a condition of receiving official school recognition and funding, without violating the group's free speech or religious rights.
Because the school's 'accept-all-comers' policy applied equally to every student group regardless of viewpoint, the Court found it a reasonable and neutral way to manage a limited program of benefits, not an attack on the Christian group's beliefs.
“CLS, it bears emphasis, seeks not parity with other organizations, but a preferential exemption from Hastings’ policy.”
The majority frames CLS as asking for special treatment rather than equal treatment.
How it got here: A federal trial court and the Ninth Circuit both ruled for Hastings on summary judgment, and CLS asked the Supreme Court to review the all-comers policy's constitutionality.
The Case in Depth
What happened
The Christian Legal Society (CLS), a student group at Hastings College of the Law, required members and officers to sign a statement of faith and to avoid sexual conduct outside heterosexual marriage. Hastings denied CLS official recognition as a student organization because its bylaws excluded students based on religion and sexual orientation, conflicting with the school's policy requiring registered groups to accept any student who wished to join.
The question before the Court
Could a public law school require a Christian student group to accept any student as a member or officer, even those who rejected its religious beliefs, before giving the group official recognition and funding?
The Court's answer
No — the Court ruled that Hastings could require the Christian Legal Society to accept any student as a member or leader, regardless of religious belief or sexual orientation, as a condition of getting official recognition and funding. The Court treated Hastings' student-organization program as a limited forum where the school may impose reasonable, viewpoint-neutral conditions on access to benefits, rather than a direct order compelling the group to include unwanted members.
Because the all-comers policy applied identically to every student group without regard to its message, and CLS remained free to operate, meet, and express its views outside the official program, the Court found no violation of CLS's free speech, association, or free exercise rights. It left open, for the lower court, CLS's separate claim that the policy was selectively enforced against it as a pretext.
Curious how the Court got there? See the step-by-step legal reasoning →
Why it matters
Student groups at public colleges and universities that want official recognition, funding, and campus privileges may need to open their membership to all students, including those who disagree with the group's mission. Religious, political, and other identity-based student organizations must now weigh whether to accept an all-comers rule or operate independently without school support.
What changes now
The case returns to the Ninth Circuit, which may consider CLS's separate argument that Hastings selectively enforced the all-comers policy against it as a pretext for viewpoint discrimination, an issue the lower courts had not previously addressed. The Supreme Court's ruling on the constitutionality of the all-comers policy itself is final, but this remaining factual dispute could still affect the ultimate outcome for CLS's Hastings chapter.
What this does not decide
The Court decided only the constitutionality of Hastings' all-comers policy as stipulated by the parties, not the separate written Nondiscrimination Policy CLS argued was applied to deny it recognition, nor whether Hastings selectively enforced the all-comers policy as a pretext for targeting CLS's viewpoint--that pretext question was left for the Ninth Circuit on remand.
Concurrences and dissents
Concurrence — Justice Stevens
Justice Stevens agreed fully with the majority but wrote to defend Hastings' written Nondiscrimination Policy against the dissent's claim that it was plainly unconstitutional. He argued the policy is content- and viewpoint-neutral because it targets discriminatory conduct, not religious belief itself, and that courts should generally respect universities' policy choices in managing limited programs like the RSO forum.
Concurrence — Justice Kennedy
Justice Kennedy agreed with the Court's reasoning but emphasized that the all-comers policy would be unconstitutional if shown to be designed or used to infiltrate a group and stifle its views, or if applied with intent to discriminate based on viewpoint. He stressed that the policy's value lies in fostering open dialogue among students with differing views rather than allowing groups to wall themselves off.
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.”Alito's central objection that the ruling punishes unpopular religious speech.
Justice Alito argued the majority mischaracterized the case by focusing only on a late-disclosed 'accept-all-comers' policy rather than the written Nondiscrimination Policy Hastings actually invoked to deny CLS recognition, which he says plainly discriminated based on viewpoint by singling out religious groups. He contended the record showed strong evidence that the accept-all-comers policy was a pretext adopted only after litigation began, and that the majority's deference to the law school abandoned this Court's traditional vigorous protection of unpopular speech.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The Court treated the case under limited-public-forum doctrine, which allows a government-created forum like a student-organization program to impose access restrictions that are reasonable and viewpoint-neutral, rather than applying the stricter test used for laws that directly compel private groups to admit unwanted members.
- The Court merged CLS's free-speech and expressive-association claims because, in this forum, requiring a group to admit all students only indirectly pressures its message--CLS could still exclude anyone by giving up official recognition rather than being directly ordered to admit members.
- Applying reasonableness review, the Court found the all-comers rule served legitimate educational purposes: ensuring all students (who fund groups through mandatory fees) can join any group, avoiding the difficult task of distinguishing status-based from belief-based exclusion, encouraging tolerance among students, and enforcing state anti-discrimination values.
- The Court found the policy viewpoint-neutral because it applied identically to every student group regardless of the ideas it promoted, targeting the act of excluding members rather than the reasons or beliefs behind the exclusion.
- Because CLS retained substantial alternative ways to meet, communicate, and operate outside the official program, the burden on its expression was not severe enough to make the policy unreasonable.
- The Court concluded that Hastings' all-comers condition on official recognition was constitutional, rejecting CLS's free speech, association, and free exercise challenges, while leaving open a separate argument about selective enforcement for the lower court to consider on remand.
Doctrinal impact
Cases affected by this decision
Distinguishes Healy v. James (408 U.S. 169)
The Court said Healy involved explicit viewpoint-based denial of recognition, unlike Hastings' neutral all-comers policy here.
Reaffirms Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va. (515 U.S. 819)
The Court relied on Rosenberger's rule that forums must be reasonable and viewpoint-neutral, applying it to uphold Hastings' policy.
Distinguishes Board of Regents of Univ. of Wis. System v. Southworth (529 U.S. 217)
The Court said Southworth's funding referendum problem differs from Hastings' uniformly applied all-comers policy.