Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/09pdf/08-1371.pdf
Page Number: 4.0

4 

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

HASTINGS COLLEGE OF LAW v. MARTINEZ 

Syllabus 

because  of  their  religious  outlook.    “Once  it  has  opened  a  limited
[public]  forum,”  the  Court  emphasized,  “the  State  must  respect  the
lawful boundaries it has itself set.”  515 U. S, at 829.  It may “not ex-
clude  speech  where  its  distinction  is  not  reasonable  in  light  of  the
purpose  served  by  the  forum,  . . .  nor  may  it  discriminate  against
speech on the basis of . . . viewpoint.”  Ibid.  Pp. 17–19.

(c) Hastings’  all-comers  policy  is  reasonable,  taking  into account
the  RSO  forum’s  function  and  “all  the  surrounding  circumstances.” 
Cornelius  v. NAACP  Legal  Defense  &  Ed.  Fund,  Inc.,  473  U. S.  788, 
809.  Pp. 19–28. 

(1) The Court’s inquiry is shaped by the educational context in 
which it arises: “First Amendment rights must be analyzed in light of
the special characteristics of the school environment.”  Widmar, 454 
U. S., at 268, n. 5.  This Court is the final arbiter of whether a public
university  has  exceeded  constitutional  constraints.    The  Court  has, 
however,  cautioned  courts  to  resist  “substitut[ing]  their  own  notions 
of  sound  educational  policy  for  those  of  . . .  school  authorities,”  for
judges lack the on-the-ground expertise and experience of school ad-
ministrators.  Board of Ed. of Hendrick Hudson Central School Dist., 
Westchester Cty. v. Rowley, 458 U. S. 176, 206.  Because schools enjoy
“a  significant  measure  of  authority  over  the  type  of  officially  recog-
nized  activities  in  which  their  students  participate,” Board  of  Ed.  of 
Westside  Community  Schools  (Dist.  66)  v.  Mergens,  496  U. S.  226, 
240, the Court approaches its task here mindful that Hastings’ deci-
sions  about  the  character  of  its  student-group  program  are  due  de-
cent respect.  Pp. 19–21.  

(2) The  justifications  Hastings  asserts  in  support  of  its  all-
comers  policy  are  reasonable  in  light  of  the  RSO  forum’s  purposes. 
First, the policy ensures that  the leadership, educational, and  social
opportunities  afforded  by  RSOs  are  available  to  all  students.    RSOs 
are  eligible  for  financial  assistance  drawn  from  mandatory  student-
activity fees; the policy ensures that no Hastings student is forced to 
fund a group that would reject her as a member.  Second, the policy
helps Hastings police the written terms of its Nondiscrimination Pol-
icy  without  inquiring  into  an  RSO’s  motivation  for  membership  re-
strictions.  CLS’s proposal that Hastings permit exclusion because of 
belief but forbid discrimination due to status would impose on Hast-
ings  the  daunting  task  of  trying  to  determine  whether  a  student  or-
ganization  cloaked  prohibited  status  exclusion  in  belief-based  garb.
Third, Hastings reasonably adheres to the view that its policy, to the
extent  it  brings  together  individuals  with  diverse  backgrounds  and 
beliefs,  encourages  tolerance,  cooperation,  and  learning  among  stu-
dents.  Fourth,  the  policy  incorporates  state-law  discrimination  pro-
scriptions,  thereby  conveying  Hastings’  decision  to  decline  to  subsi-