Christian Legal Society v. Martinez

The University of California-Hastings College of the Law (“Hastings”) nondiscrimination policy prohibits any Registered Student Organization (“RSO”) from discriminating “unlawfully on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin . . . or sexual orientation.” The Christian Legal Society (“CLS”) argues that Hastings’ policy is viewpoint-discriminatory. Thus, CLS argues the policy is subject to strict scrutiny, requiring a compelling government interest. However, CLS maintains that the government has no legitimate interest in prohibiting people from organizing around shared religious beliefs or from selecting leaders based upon religious views. Hastings contends that their policy is constitutional, based on the policy’s viewpoint-neutrality and the reasonableness of its conditions.

Respondent-Intervenor Hastings Outlaw echoes many of the same arguments as Hastings, but stresses that the Supreme Court’s writ of certiorari was improvidently granted. Outlaw asserts that CLS had already stipulated that Hastings’ policy requires RSOs to allow any student to seek leadership positions regardless of their beliefs. Outlaw contends that CLS only now raises arguments over the meaning of the policy, after CLS had already admitted that the policy did not discriminate based on one’s belief. However, Outlaw points the Court’s attention to the rule that “[generally,] a stipulation of fact . . . is controlling on the parties and the court is bound to enforce it.”

CLS argues that Hastings’ policy unconstitutionally excludes their local chapter from participating in a public forum, thus infringing on their First Amendment right to expressive association. CLS asserts that participation in a campus forum is necessary for the group to continue functioning in the student community. Respondent Hastings argues that the state can attach reasonable conditions to any program it funds, provided the conditions do not create a coercive environment. Hastings argues that a public university is a limited forum for student speech, and thus, viewpoint-neutral restrictions on speech are constitutional.

CLS argues that allowing “unrepentant” homosexuals into their leadership and voting membership is detrimental to their message and poses a severe burden on their ability to associate freely. CLS stresses that its requirements for leadership positions are not based on conduct, but on religious/moral belief, and the prohibition on sexual discrimination infringes on their right to maintain that belief. The belief that “unrepentant” homosexuality is morally wrong does not mean that CLS seeks to create a hostile environment or antagonize homosexuals. CLS notes that its rules do not exclude anyone based on their sexual orientation, but on belief and behavior that applies to homosexuals and heterosexuals alike.

Hastings maintains that their open-membership policy applies to all student groups, without targeting religion or a particular belief, and is therefore viewpoint-neutral. Hastings contends that, while a nondiscrimination condition may have a greater effect on a particular group, that does not mean the condition itself is viewpoint-discriminatory. CLS argues that, while other groups based around political or cultural views can restrict their officers to those of a certain belief, Hastings’ policy prohibits religious groups from selecting leaders based on their beliefs. CLS argues that this policy infringes one’s right to religious association by denying CLS the ability to choose leaders that conform to the group’s core beliefs. Hastings contends that a viewpoint-neutral restriction on speech is not discriminatory simply because it affects one’s right to associate—that is the case with almost any limitation on speech.

Hastings also points to the fact that various Christian groups have existed before, and the policy does not exclude speech based on its viewpoint. Hastings stresses that it has never barred the group’s presence and even allowed CLS to use school facilities. Hastings argues that CLS has been given the same viewpoint-neutral choice as every other RSO and that CLS is, in fact, arguing for special treatment: existence as an RSO while maintaining discriminatory practices. Under Hastings’ interpretation of its policy, student groups are free to abide by the open-membership rule and receive certain benefits or disregard the rule and lose the school’s recognition.

CLS contends that the ability for the group to exist apart from the benefits the school provides to RSOs does not lessen the discriminatory impact of the restriction. CLS maintains that Hastings’ policy is unconstitutional even though noncompliance does not ban the group from meeting, but merely denies access to certain benefits. CLS argues that student funding is collected from every student at the school for the purpose of creating a space for diverse viewpoints, and a denial of such benefits infringes on the ability to have a meeting space in a public forum. Hastings maintains that it has concluded that allowing students equal access to its RSOs is the best way to enhance the student experience. Hastings further argues that it is reasonable to conclude that its mandatory student activity fee only underscores the need for students to fund activities in which everyone can partake. Hastings also contends that its policy follows state law in prohibiting the use of school resources to support discriminatory practices. Hastings further argues that it is reasonable to deny resources to RSOs that support discriminatory practices to use the Hastings name, since it may give the impression that the school supports those practices.

CLS maintains that if they followed Hastings’ nondiscriminatory policy, they would open their group to leaders that do not share their beliefs, thus sabotaging their message. CLS stresses that the right to association allows groups to restrict their association to those that support the group, rather than require them to admit students that oppose their message. CLS further argues that freedom of association protects the voice of minority or unpopular groups from harassment. CLS is concerned that this policy would allow a small group to be taken over by students hostile to that group’s views. For example, if a group of students opposed the beliefs of a 5-member CLS organization, an opposing 6-member group could simply show up at an election meeting and vote in its own candidates. However, Hastings contends that its policy strengthens minority viewpoints by encouraging debate within as well as among groups. Hastings also notes that there has never been an incident of leadership sabotage. CLS contends that if any viewpoint was allowed within a particular group, the group would become blurred, and result in its own forum of diverse ideas, rather than a group that could advance a particular view among other groups. CLS argues that this limitation allows freedom of association at the expense of one’s right to equal treatment within a speech forum.