Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/09pdf/08-1371.pdf
Page Number: 60

12 

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

Ms.  Chapman  requesting  permission  to  set  up  an  “advice 
table”  on  a  campus  patio  on  August  23  and  24  so  that 
members  of  CLS  could  speak  with  students  at  the  begin-
ning  of  the  fall  semester.    Id.,  at  298.  This  request—
merely  to  set  up  a  table  on  a  patio—could  hardly  have
interfered with any other use of the law school’s premises
or  cost  the  school  any  money.    But  although  the  request 
was  labeled  “time  sensitive,”  ibid.,  Ms.  Chapman  did  not 
respond  until  the  dates  in  question  had  passed,  and  she 
then advised the student that all further inquiries should 
be made through CLS’s attorney.  Id., at 297–298. 

In September 2005, CLS tried again.  Through counsel,
CLS  sought  to  reserve  a  room  on  campus  for  a  guest
speaker who was scheduled to appear on a specified date. 
Id., at 302–303.  Noting Ms. Chapman’s tardy response on
the  prior  occasion,  the  attorney  asked  to  receive  a  re-
sponse  before  the  scheduled  date,  but  once  again  no  an-
swer  was  given  until  after  the  date  had  passed.    Id.,  at 
300. 

Other statements in the majority opinion make it seem
as if the denial of registration did not hurt CLS at all.  The 
Court  notes  that  CLS  was  able  to  hold  Bible-study  meet-
ings  and  other  events.  Ante,  at  6.    And  “[a]lthough  CLS 
could not take advantage of RSO-specific methods of com-
munication,”  the  Court  states,  “the  advent  of  electronic 
media and social-networking sites reduces the importance
of those channels.”  Ante, at 24. 

At  the  beginning  of  the  2005  school  year,  the  Hastings
CLS group had seven members, App. to Pet. for Cert. 13a, 
so  there  can  be  no  suggestion  that  the  group  flourished.
And  since  one  of  CLS’s  principal  claims  is  that  it  was 
subjected  to  discrimination  based  on  its  viewpoint,  the
majority’s  emphasis  on  CLS’s  ability  to  endure  that  dis-
crimination—by  using  private  facilities  and  means  of 
communication—is quite amazing.

This  Court  does  not  customarily  brush  aside  a  claim  of