Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/09pdf/08-1371.pdf
Page Number: 36.0

30 

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

others.”  Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U. S. 781, 791 
(1989).  See  also  Madsen  v.  Women’s  Health  Center,  Inc., 
512  U. S.  753,  763  (1994)  (“[T]he  fact  that  the  injunction 
covered  people  with  a  particular  viewpoint  does  not  itself 
render the injunction content or viewpoint based.”).

Even if a regulation has a differential impact on groups 
wishing  to  enforce  exclusionary  membership  policies, 
“[w]here the [State] does not target conduct on the basis of 
its  expressive  content,  acts  are  not  shielded  from  regula­
tion merely because they express a discriminatory idea or
philosophy.”  R. A. V.  v.  St.  Paul,  505  U. S.  377,  390 
(1992).  See also Roberts, 468 U. S., at 623 (State’s nondis­
crimination  law  did  not  “distinguish  between  prohibited
and permitted activity on the basis of viewpoint.”); Board 
of  Directors  of  Rotary  Int’l  v.  Rotary  Club  of  Duarte,  481 
U. S. 537, 549 (1987) (same).

Hastings’  requirement  that  student  groups  accept  all
comers, we  are satisfied, “is justified without  reference to 
the content [or viewpoint] of the regulated speech.”  Ward, 
491 U. S., at 791 (internal quotation marks and emphasis 
omitted).  The Law School’s policy aims at the act of reject­
ing  would-be  group  members  without  reference  to  the 
reasons  motivating  that  behavior:  Hastings’  “desire  to 
redress  th[e]  perceived  harms”  of  exclusionary  member­
ship policies “provides an adequate explanation for its [all­
comers condition] over and above mere disagreement with 
[any  student  group’s]  beliefs  or  biases.”    Wisconsin  v. 
Mitchell,  508  U. S.  476,  488  (1993).    CLS’s  conduct—not 
its  Christian  perspective—is,  from  Hastings’  vantage
point,  what  stands  between  the  group  and  RSO  status. 
“In the end,” as Hastings observes, “CLS is simply confus­
ing its own viewpoint-based objections to . . . nondiscrimi­
nation  laws  (which  it  is  entitled  to  have  and  [to]  voice) 
with viewpoint discrimination.”  Brief for Hastings 31.26 

—————— 

26 Although registered student groups must conform their conduct to