Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/09pdf/08-1371.pdf
Page Number: 74

26 

CHRISTIAN LEGAL SOC. CHAPTER OF UNIV. OF CAL., 
HASTINGS COLLEGE OF LAW v. MARTINEZ 
ALITO, J., dissenting 

organizations  focused  on  a  subject  but  did  not  claim  to
promote a particular viewpoint on that subject (for exam-
ple,  the  Association  of  Communications,  Sports  &  Enter-
tainment Law); others were defined, not by subject, but by
viewpoint.  The forum did not have a single Party Politics 
Club;  rather,  it  featured  both  the  Hastings  Democratic 
Caucus  and  the  Hastings  Republicans.  There  was  no 
Reproductive  Issues  Club;  the  forum  included  separate
pro-choice and pro-life organizations.  Students did not see 
fit to create a Monotheistic Religions Club, but they have
formed  the  Hastings  Jewish  Law  Students  Association 
and the Hastings Association of Muslim Law Students.  In 
short,  the  RSO  forum,  true  to  its  design,  has  allowed 
Hastings students to replicate on campus a broad array of
private, independent, noncommercial organizations that is
very similar to those that nonstudents have formed in the 
outside world. 

The accept-all-comers policy is antithetical to the design
of the RSO forum for the same reason that a state-imposed
accept-all-comers  policy  would  violate  the  First  Amend-
ment  rights  of  private  groups  if  applied  off  campus.  As 
explained  above,  a  group’s  First  Amendment  right  of
expressive  association  is  burdened  by  the  “forced  inclu-
sion”  of  members  whose  presence  would  “affec[t]  in  a 
significant  way  the  group’s  ability  to  advocate  public  or
private  viewpoints.”  Dale,  530  U. S.,  at  648.    The  Court 
has therefore held that the government may not compel a
group  that  engages  in  “expressive  association”  to  admit 
such  a  member  unless  the  government  has  a  compelling 
interest,  “ ‘unrelated  to  the  suppression  of  ideas,  that 
cannot  be  achieved  through  means  significantly  less  re-
strictive  of  associational  freedoms.’ ”  Ibid.  (quoting  Rob-
erts, 468 U. S., at 623). 

There  can  be  no  dispute  that  this  standard  would  not 
permit a generally applicable law mandating that private 
religious  groups  admit  members  who  do  not  share  the