Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/09pdf/08-1371.pdf
Page Number: 66

18 

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

Good  News  Club  v.  Milford  Central  School,  533  U. S.  98, 
112,  and  n.  4  (2001).   See  Rosenberger,  supra,  at  831; 
Lamb’s Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School Dist., 
508  U. S.  384,  393–394  (1993);  Widmar  v.  Vincent,  454 
U. S. 263, 277 (1981).

We have applied this analysis in cases in which student 
speech  was  restricted  because  of  the  speaker’s  religious 
viewpoint,  and  we  have  consistently  concluded  that  such 
restrictions  constitute  viewpoint  discrimination.    E.g., 
Rosenberger,  supra,  at  845–846;  Widmar,  supra,  at  267, 
n. 5,  269,  277;  see  also  Good  News  Club,  supra,  at  106– 
107, 109–110; Lamb’s Chapel, supra, at 392–393, 394.  We 
have  also  stressed  that  the  rules  applicable  in  a  limited 
public  forum  are  particularly  important  in  the  university
setting,  where  “the  State  acts  against  a  background  of 
tradition  of  thought  and  experiment  that  is  at  the  center
of our intellectual and philosophic tradition.”  Rosenberger, 
supra, at 835. 

IV 
Analyzed  under  this  framework,  Hastings’  refusal  to
register  CLS  pursuant  to  its  Nondiscrimination  Policy 
plainly fails.3  As previously noted, when Hastings refused 

—————— 

3 CLS  sought  a  declaratory  judgment  that  this  policy  is  unconstitu-
tional  and  an  injunction  prohibiting  its  enforcement.    See  App.  80.
Particularly  in  light  of  Hastings’  practice  of  changing  its  announced
policies, these requests are not moot.  It is well settled that the volun-
tary  cessation  of  allegedly  unlawful  conduct  does  not  moot  a  case  in
which the legality of that conduct is challenged.  See City of Mesquite v. 
Aladdin’s  Castle,  Inc.,  455  U. S.  283,  289  (1982);  see  also  Allee  v. 
Medrano,  416  U. S.  802,  810–811  (1974);  DeFunis  v.  Odegaard,  416 
U. S.  312,  318  (1974)  (per  curiam).    If  the  rule  were  otherwise,  the 
courts would be compelled to leave “ ‘[t]he defendant . . . free to return 
to  his  old  ways.’ ”  United  States  v.  Concentrated  Phosphate  Export 
Assn.,  Inc.,  393  U. S.  199,  203  (1968)  (quoting  United  States  v.  W.  T. 
Grant  Co.,  345  U. S.  629,  632  (1953)).    Here,  there  is  certainly  a  risk 
that  Hastings  will  “return  to  [its]  old  ways,”  and  therefore  CLS’s
requests  for  declaratory  and  injunctive  relief  with  respect  to  the  Non-