Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/09pdf/08-1371.pdf
Page Number: 85

Cite as:  561 U. S. ____ (2010) 

37 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

Agudath  Israel  of  America  as  Amicus  Curiae  3,  8  (affir-
mance  would  “point  a  judicial  dagger  at  the  heart  of  the 
Orthodox  Jewish  community  in  the  United  States”  and
permit that community to be relegated to the status of  “a 
second-class  group”);  Brief  for  Union  of  Orthodox  Jewish
Congregations of America as Amicus Curiae 3 (affirmance 
“could significantly affect the ability of [affiliated] student 
clubs and youth movements . . . to prescribe requirements
for  their  membership  and  leaders  based  on  religious  be-
liefs  and  commitments”).  This  is  where  the  Court’s  deci-
sion leads. 

*

* 

*
I  do  not  think  it  is  an  exaggeration  to  say  that  today’s
decision  is  a  serious  setback  for  freedom  of  expression  in 
this  country.    Our  First  Amendment  reflects  a  “profound 
national  commitment  to  the  principle  that  debate  on
public  issues  should  be  uninhibited,  robust,  and  wide-
open.”  New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254, 270 
(1964).  Even if the United States is the only Nation that 
shares  this  commitment  to  the  same  extent,  I  would  not 
change  our  law  to  conform  to  the  international  norm.  I 
fear  that  the  Court’s  decision  marks  a  turn  in  that  direc-
tion.  Even  those  who  find  CLS’s  views  objectionable
should  be  concerned  about  the  way  the  group  has  been
treated—by Hastings, the Court of Appeals, and now this
Court.  I can only hope that this decision will turn out to
be an aberration.