Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/09pdf/08-1371.pdf
Page Number: 80

32 

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

evidence in the record that the policy was announced as a 
pretext.

The adoption of a facially neutral policy for the purpose
of  suppressing  the  expression  of  a  particular  viewpoint  is 
viewpoint discrimination.  See Crawford v. Board of Ed. of 
Los Angeles, 458 U. S. 527, 544 (1982) (“[A] law neutral on
its  face  still  may  be  unconstitutional  if  motivated  by  a 
discriminatory  purpose”).  A  simple  example  illustrates 
this obvious point.  Suppose that a hated student group at
a state university has never been able to attract more than
10 members.  Suppose that the university administration,
for  the  purpose  of  preventing  that  group  from  using  the 
school  grounds  for  meetings,  adopts  a  new  rule  under 
which  the  use  of  its  facilities  is  restricted  to  groups  with 
more  than  25  members.  Although  this  rule  would  be
neutral on its face, its adoption for a discriminatory reason
would be illegal.

Here,  CLS  has  made  a  strong  showing  that  Hastings’ 
sudden adoption and selective application of its accept-all-
comers  policy  was  a  pretext  for  the  law  school’s  unlawful
denial of CLS’s registration application under the Nondis-
crimination Policy. 

Shifting policies.  When Hastings denied CLS’s applica-
tion in the fall of 2004, the only policy mentioned was the 
Nondiscrimination  Policy.  In  July  2005,  the  former  dean
suggested  in  a  deposition  that  the  law  school  actually
followed  the  very  different  accept-all-comers  policy.    In 
March of this year, Hastings’ brief in this Court rolled out 
still  a  third  policy.  As  is  recognized  in  the  employment 
discrimination  context,  where  issues  of  pretext  regularly 
arise,  “[s]ubstantial  changes  over  time  in  [an]  employer’s 
—————— 

pay  fees  which  are  subsidies  for  speech  they  find  objectionable,  even
offensive,”  solely  upon  a  majority  vote  of  the  student  body.    See  529 
U. S., at 230, 235.  That is no different in principle than an accept-all-
comers policy that places all student organizations at risk of take-over 
by a majority that is hostile to a group’s viewpoint.