Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/09pdf/08-1371.pdf
Page Number: 10.0

4 

CHRISTIAN LEGAL SOC. CHAPTER OF UNIV. OF CAL., 

HASTINGS COLLEGE OF LAW v. MARTINEZ 

Opinion of the Court 

crimination.  [Hasting’s]  policy  on  nondiscrimination
is to comply fully with applicable law. 
“[Hastings]  shall  not  discriminate  unlawfully  on  the
basis of race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry,
disability, age, sex or sexual orientation.  This nondis­
crimination  policy  covers  admission,  access  and 
treatment in Hastings-sponsored programs and activi­
ties.”  Id., at 220. 

Hastings  interprets  the  Nondiscrimination  Policy,  as  it 
relates to the RSO program, to mandate acceptance of all 
comers:  School-approved  groups  must  “allow  any  student 
to participate, become a member, or seek leadership posi­
tions  in  the  organization,  regardless  of  [her]  status  or
beliefs.”  Id.,  at  221.2    Other  law  schools  have  adopted 
similar  all-comers  policies.  See,  e.g.,  Georgetown  Univer­
sity  Law  Center,  Office  of  Student  Life:  Student  Organi 
zations,  available  at  http://www.law.georgetown.edu/
Internet 
StudentLife/StudentOrgs/NewGroup.htm 

(All 

—————— 

2 “Th[is]  policy,”  Hastings  clarifies,  “does  not  foreclose  neutral  and
generally  applicable  membership  requirements  unrelated  to  ‘status  or
beliefs.’ ”  Brief for Hastings 5.  So long as all students have the oppor-
tunity to participate on equal terms, RSOs may require them, inter alia, 
to pay dues, maintain good attendance, refrain from gross misconduct,
or  pass  a  skill-based  test,  such  as  the  writing  competitions  adminis­
tered  by  law  journals.    See  ibid.    The  dissent  trumpets  these  neutral, 
generally applicable membership requirements, arguing that, in truth, 
Hastings has a “some-comers,” not an all-comers, policy.  Post, at 2, 3, 
8–9,  10,  23–24,  32–33  (opinion  of  ALITO,  J.).    Hastings’  open-access
policy, however, requires only that student organizations open eligibil­
ity  for  membership  and  leadership  regardless  of  a  student’s  status  or
beliefs;  dues,  attendance,  skill  measurements,  and  comparable  uni­
formly  applied  standards  are  fully  compatible  with  the  policy.  The 
dissent makes much of Hastings’ observation that groups have imposed 
“even conduct requirements.”  Post, at 9, 23–24.  But the very example
Hastings  cites  leaves  no  doubt  that  the  Law  School  was  referring  to
boilerplate good-behavior standards, e.g., “[m]embership may cease . . . 
if  the  member  is  found  to  be  involved  in  gross  misconduct,”  App.  173
(cited in Brief for Hastings 5).