Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/09pdf/08-1371.pdf
Page Number: 59.0

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

11 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

The  majority’s  insistence  on  the  binding  effect  of  stipu-
lations  contrasts  sharply  with  its  failure  to  recognize  the 
binding  effect  of  a  party’s  admissions  in  an  answer.    See 
American  Title  Insurance  Co.  v.  Lacelaw  Corp.,  861  F. 2d 
224, 226 (CA9 1988) (“Factual assertions in pleadings and 
pretrial  orders,  unless  amended,  are  considered  judicial 
admissions  conclusively  binding  on  the  party  who  made 
them”); Bakersfield Westar Ambulance, Inc. v. Community 
First  Bank,  123  F. 3d  1243,  1248  (CA9  1997)  (quoting 
Lacelaw, supra).  As noted above, Hastings admitted in its
answer, which was filed prior to the former dean’s deposi-
tion,  that  at  least  as  of  that  time,  the  law  school  did  not 
follow  an  accept-all-comers  policy  and  instead  allowed
“political,  social,  and  cultural  student  organizations  to 
select  officers  and  members  who  are  dedicated  to  a  par-
ticular set of ideals or beliefs.”  App. 93. 

B 
The  Court  also  distorts  the  record  with  respect  to  the
effect  on  CLS  of  Hastings’  decision  to  deny  registration.
The  Court  quotes  a  letter  written  by  Hastings’  general 
counsel  in  which  she  stated  that  Hastings  “ ‘would  be 
pleased  to provide  [CLS]  the  use  of  Hastings  facilities  for 
its  meetings  and  activities.’ ”  Ante,  at  6  (quoting  App. 
294).  Later in its opinion, the Court reiterates that “Hast-
ings  offered  CLS  access  to  school  facilities  to  conduct 
meetings,”  ante,  at  24,  but  the  majority  does  not  mention 
that this offer was subject to important qualifications.  As 
Hastings’  attorney  put  it  in  the  District  Court,  Hastings
told  CLS:  “ ‘Hastings  allows  community  groups  to  some 
degree  to  use  its  facilities,  sometimes  on  a  pay  basis,  I 
understand,  if  they’re  available  after  priority  is  given  to
registered organizations’.  We offered that.”  App. 442.

The  Court  also  fails  to  mention  what  happened  when
CLS  attempted  to  take  advantage  of  Hastings’  offer.    On 
August 19, 2005, the local CLS president sent an e-mail to