Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/09pdf/08-1371.pdf
Page Number: 67

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

19 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

to register CLS, it claimed that the CLS bylaws impermis-
sibly  discriminated  on  the  basis  of  religion  and  sexual
orientation.    As  interpreted  by  Hastings  and  applied 
to  CLS,  both  of  these  grounds  constituted  viewpoint
discrimination. 

Religion.  The  First  Amendment  protects  the  right  of 
“ ‘expressive  association’ ”—that  is,  “the  right  to  associate 
for the purpose of speaking.”  Rumsfeld v. Forum for Aca-
demic  and  Institutional  Rights,  Inc.,  547  U. S.  47,  68 
(2006)  (quoting  Boy  Scouts  of  America  v.  Dale,  530  U. S. 
640, 644 (2000)).  And the Court has recognized that “[t]he 
forced  inclusion  of  an  unwanted  person  in  a  group  in-
fringes the group’s freedom of expressive association if the
presence  of  that  person  affects  in  a  significant  way  the
group’s  ability  to  advocate  public  or  private  viewpoints.” 
Dale, supra, at 648. 

With  one  important  exception,  the  Hastings  Nondis-
crimination  Policy  respected  that  right.  As  Hastings
stated  in  its  answer,  the  Nondiscrimination  Policy  “per-
mit[ted]  political,  social,  and  cultural  student  organiza-
tions to select officers and members who are dedicated to a 
particular set of ideals or beliefs.”  App. 93.  But the policy 
singled  out  one  category  of  expressive  associations  for 
disfavored treatment: groups formed to express a religious 
message.  Only  religious  groups  were  required  to  admit 
students  who  did  not  share  their  views.  An  environmen-
talist  group  was  not  required  to  admit  students  who  re-
—————— 

discrimination  Policy  are  not  moot.    If,  as  the  Court  assumes,  the 
parties stipulated that the only relevant policy is the accept-all-comers 
policy, then the District Court should not have addressed the constitu-
tionality  of  the  Nondiscrimination  Policy.    But  the  District  Court 
approved  both  policies,  and  the  Court  of  Appeals  affirmed  the  judg-
ment.  That judgment remains binding on CLS, so it is only appropriate
that  CLS  be  permitted  to  challenge  that  determination  now.    The 
question  of  the  constitutionality  of  the  Nondiscrimination  Policy  falls
comfortably  within  the  question  presented,  and  CLS  raised  that  issue
in its brief.  See Brief for Petitioner 41–46.