Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/09pdf/08-1371.pdf
Page Number: 34

28 

CHRISTIAN LEGAL SOC. CHAPTER OF UNIV. OF CAL., 
HASTINGS COLLEGE OF LAW v. MARTINEZ 
Opinion of the Court 

29) that the Law School lacks any legitimate interest—let
alone  one  reasonably  related  to  the  RSO  forum’s  pur­
poses—in  urging  “religious  groups  not  to  favor  co­
religionists for purposes of their religious activities.”  Brief 
for Petitioner 43; id., at 50.  CLS’s analytical error lies in 
focusing  on  the  benefits  it  must  forgo  while  ignoring  the 
interests of those it seeks to fence out: Exclusion, after all, 
has two sides.  Hastings, caught in the crossfire between a 
group’s  desire  to  exclude  and  students’  demand  for  equal 
access, may reasonably draw a line in the sand permitting 
all  organizations  to  express  what  they  wish  but  no  group
to discriminate in membership.24 

D 
We next consider whether Hastings’ all-comers policy is

viewpoint neutral. 

1 

Although  this  aspect  of  limited-public-forum  analysis 
has  been  the  constitutional  sticking  point  in  our  prior
decisions,  as  earlier  recounted,  supra,  at  17–19,  we  need 
not  dwell  on  it  here.  It  is,  after  all,  hard  to  imagine  a
more  viewpoint-neutral  policy  than  one  requiring  all 
student groups to accept all comers.  In contrast to Healy, 
Widmar,  and  Rosenberger,  in  which  universities  singled
out organizations for disfavored treatment because of their 
—————— 

24 In  arguing  that  the  all-comers  policy  is  not  reasonable  in  light  of 
the  RSO  forum’s  purposes,  the  dissent  notes  that  Title  VII,  which 
prohibits  employment  discrimination  on  the  basis  of  religion,  among 
other categories, provides an exception for religious associations.  Post, 
at 28, n. 8.  The question here, however, is not whether Hastings could, 
consistent with the Constitution, provide religious groups dispensation
from the all-comers policy by permitting them to restrict membership to
those who share their faith.  It is instead whether Hastings must grant 
that  exemption.    This  Court’s  decision  in  Employment  Div.,  Dept.  of 
Human  Resources  of  Ore.  v.  Smith,  494  U. S.  872,  878–882  (1990),
unequivocally answers no to that latter question.  See also infra, at 31, 
n. 27.