Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/09pdf/08-1371.pdf
Page Number: 35.0

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

29 

Opinion of the Court 

points of view, Hastings’ all-comers requirement draws no 
distinction  between  groups  based  on  their  message  or 
perspective.    An  all-comers  condition  on  access  to  RSO 
status, in short, is textbook viewpoint neutral.25 

2 
Conceding that Hastings’ all-comers policy is “nominally
neutral,”  CLS  attacks  the  regulation  by  pointing  to  its 
effect:  The  policy  is  vulnerable  to  constitutional  assault,
CLS  contends,  because  “it  systematically  and  predictably 
burdens  most  heavily  those  groups  whose  viewpoints  are 
out of favor with the campus mainstream.”  Brief for Peti­
tioner  51;  cf.  post,  at  1  (ALITO,  J.,  dissenting)  (charging
that Hastings’ policy favors “political[ly] correc[t]” student 
expression).  This  argument  stumbles  from  its  first  step
because  “[a]  regulation  that  serves  purposes  unrelated  to
the content of expression is deemed neutral, even if it has 
an incidental effect on some speakers or messages but not 

—————— 

25 Relying exclusively on Board of Regents of Univ. of Wis. System v. 
Southworth, 529 U. S. 217 (2000), the dissent “would not be so quick to 
jump  to  th[e]  conclusion”  that  the  all-comers  policy  is  viewpoint  neu­
tral.    Post,  at  31,  and  31–32,  n. 10.    Careful  consideration  of  South-
worth,  however,  reveals  how  desperate  the  dissent’s  argument  is.    In 
Southworth,  university  students  challenged  a  mandatory  student­
activity  fee  used  to  fund  student  groups.    Finding  the  political  and 
ideological  speech  of  certain  groups  offensive,  the  student-challengers 
argued  that  imposition  of  the  fee  violated  their  First  Amendment 
rights.  529 U. S., at 221.  This Court upheld the university’s choice to 
subsidize groups whose expression some students found distasteful, but
we admonished that the university could not “prefer some viewpoints to
others” in the distribution of funds.  Id., at 233.  We cautioned that the 
university’s  referendum  process,  which  allowed  students  to  vote  on
whether a student organization would receive financial support, risked 
violation of this principle by allowing students to select groups to fund
based on their viewpoints.  Id., at 235.  In this case, in contrast, the all­
comers  policy  governs  all  RSOs;  Hastings  does  not  pick  and  choose 
which organizations must comply with the policy on the basis of view­
point.    App.  221.  Southworth  accordingly  provides  no  support  for  the 
dissent’s warped analysis.