Case ID: f-appx_319/html/0645-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CHRISTIAN LEGAL SOCIETY CHAPTER OF UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, Hastings College of the Law, aka Hastings Christian Fellowship, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mary Kay KANE, in her official capacity as Chancellor and Dean of University of California, Hastings College of the Law; Judy Chapman, in her official capacity as Director of Student Services for University of California, Hastings College of the Law; Maureen E. Corcoran; Eugene L. Freeland; Carin T. Fujisaki; John T. Knox; Jan Lewenhaupt; James E. Mahoney; Brian D. Monaghan; Bruce L. Simon; John K. Smith; Tony West, in their official capacities as the Board of Directors of the University of California, Hastings College of the Law, Defendants-Appellees, Hastings Outlaw, Defendant-intervenor-Appellee.
    No. 06-15956.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted March 10, 2009.
    Filed March 17, 2009.
    Gregory Baylor, Center for Law & Religious Freedom, Timothy J. Tracey, Litigation Counsel, Religious Liberty Advocates of the Christian Legal Society, Springfield, VA, Benjamin Wyman Bull, Esquire, Chief Counsel, Gary McCaleb, Alliance Defense Fund, Scottsdale, AZ, Steven R. Burling-ham, Esquire, Gary Till & Burlingham, Timothy M. Smith, Esquire, McKinley & Smith A Professional Corporation, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Ethan P. Schulman, Esquire, Folger Levin & Kahn, LLP, Elise K. Traynum, Esquire, General Counsel Mezzanine Level, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Shannon Minter, Esquire, National Center for Lesbian Rights, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-intervenor-Appellee.
    Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, HUG and BEA, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

The parties stipulate that 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 conditions on recognition are therefore viewpoint neutral and reasonable. Truth v. Kent Sch. Dist., 542 F.3d 634, 649-50 (9th Cir.2008).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.