Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/09pdf/08-1371.pdf
Page Number: 46.0

2 

CHRISTIAN LEGAL SOC. CHAPTER OF UNIV. OF CAL., 

HASTINGS COLLEGE OF LAW v. MARTINEZ 

KENNEDY, J., concurring

of  thought  and  experiment  that  is  at  the  center  of  our 
intellectual  and  philosophic  tradition”).    These  considera-
tions  supported  the  Court’s  conclusion  that,  under  the
First  Amendment,  a  limited  forum  for  student-run  publi-
cations  did  not  permit  the  exclusion  of  a  paper  for  the 
reason that it was devoted to expressing religious views. 

Rosenberger  is  distinguishable  from  the  instant  case  in
various respects.  Not least is that here the school policy in
question  is  not  content  based  either  in  its  formulation  or
evident  purpose;  and  were  it  shown  to  be  otherwise,  the 
case  likely  should  have  a  different  outcome.    Here,  the 
policy applies equally to all groups and views.  And, given
the  stipulation  of  the  parties,  there  is  no  basis  for  an 
allegation  that  the  design  or  purpose  of  the  rule  was,  by
subterfuge, to discriminate based on viewpoint.

An objection might be that the all-comers policy, even if 
not  so  designed  or  intended,  in  fact  makes  it  difficult  for
certain  groups  to  express  their  views  in  a  manner  essen-
tial to their message.  A group that can limit membership
to those who agree in full with its aims and purposes may 
be  more  effective  in  delivering  its  message  or  furthering 
its  expressive  objectives;  and  the  Court  has  recognized 
that  this  interest  can  be  protected  against  governmental
interference  or  regulation.  See  Boy  Scouts  of  America  v. 
Dale,  530  U. S.  640  (2000).    By  allowing  like-minded  stu-
dents  to  form  groups  around  shared  identities,  a  school
creates  room  for  self-expression  and  personal  develop-
ment.  See  Board  of  Regents  of  Univ.  of  Wis.  System  v. 
Southworth,  529  U. S.  217,  229  (2000)  (“The  University’s 
whole  justification  for  [its  student  activity  program]  is 
that  it  springs  from  the  initiative  of  the  students,  who
alone  give  it  purpose  and  content  in  the  course  of  their 
extracurricular endeavors”). 

In the instant case, however, if the membership qualifi-
cation  were  enforced,  it  would  contradict  a  legitimate
purpose  for  having  created  the  limited  forum  in  the  first