Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/09pdf/08-1371.pdf
Page Number: 50.0

2 

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

HASTINGS COLLEGE OF LAW v. MARTINEZ 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

that  this  “accept-all-comers”  policy,  ante,  at  1,  is  both 
viewpoint-neutral  and  consistent  with  Hastings’  pro-
claimed policy of fostering a diversity of viewpoints among 
registered student groups.

The Court’s treatment of this case is deeply disappoint-
ing.  The  Court  does  not  address  the  constitutionality  of 
the  very  different  policy  that  Hastings  invoked  when  it
denied  CLS’s  application  for  registration.    Nor  does  the 
Court  address  the  constitutionality  of  the  policy  that 
Hastings  now  purports  to  follow.    And  the  Court  ignores 
strong  evidence  that  the  accept-all-comers  policy  is  not
viewpoint  neutral  because  it  was  announced  as  a  pretext
to justify viewpoint discrimination.  Brushing aside incon-
venient  precedent,  the  Court  arms  public  educational
institutions  with  a  handy  weapon  for  suppressing  the 
speech of unpopular groups—groups to which, as Hastings 
candidly puts it, these institutions “do not wish to . . . lend 
their  name[s].”  Brief  for  Respondent  Hastings  College  of 
Law 11; see also id., at 35. 

I 

The  Court  provides  a  misleading  portrayal  of  this  case. 
As  related  by  the  Court,  (1)  Hastings,  for  the  past  20
years, has required any student group seeking registration
to admit any student who wishes to join, ante, at 5; (2) the 
effects  of  Hastings’  refusal  to  register  CLS  have  been  of
questionable  importance,  see  ante,  at  24–25;  and  (3)  this 
case is about CLS’s desire to obtain “a state subsidy,” ante, 
at 15.  I begin by correcting the picture. 

A 
The  Court  bases  all  of  its  analysis  on  the  proposition
that  the  relevant  Hastings’  policy  is  the  so-called  accept-
all-comers  policy.  This  frees  the  Court  from  the  difficult 
task of defending the constitutionality of either the policy
that  Hastings  actually—and  repeatedly—invoked  when  it