Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/09pdf/08-1371.pdf
Page Number: 19

Cite as:  561 U. S. ____ (2010) 

13 

Opinion of the Court 

nal  quotation  marks  omitted),  the  Court  has  permitted
restrictions  on  access  to  a  limited  public  forum,  like  the 
RSO  program  here,  with  this  key  caveat:  Any  access  bar­
rier  must  be  reasonable  and  viewpoint  neutral,  e.g., 
Rosenberger,  515  U. S.,  at  829.    See  also,  e.g.,  Good  News 
Club  v.  Milford  Central  School,  533  U. S.  98,  106–107 
(2001);  Lamb’s  Chapel  v.  Center  Moriches  Union  Free 
School  Dist.,  508  U. S.  384,  392–393  (1993);  Perry  Ed. 
Assn.  v.  Perry  Local  Educators’  Assn.,  460  U. S.  37,  46 
(1983).12 

Second,  as  evidenced  by  another  set  of  decisions,  this 
Court  has  rigorously  reviewed  laws  and  regulations  that
constrain  associational  freedom.  In  the  context  of  public
accommodations,  we  have  subjected  restrictions  on  that
freedom  to  close  scrutiny;  such  restrictions  are  permitted 
only  if  they  serve  “compelling  state  interests”  that  are 
“unrelated  to  the  suppression  of  ideas”—interests  that 
cannot be advanced “through . . . significantly less restric­
tive [means].”  Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U. S. 
609,  623  (1984).    See  also,  e.g.,  Boy  Scouts  of  America  v. 
Dale, 530 U. S. 640, 648 (2000).  “Freedom of association,” 
we have recognized, “plainly presupposes a freedom not to
associate.”  Roberts,  468  U. S.,  at  623.    Insisting  that  an
organization  embrace  unwelcome  members,  we  have
therefore  concluded,  “directly  and  immediately  affects
associational rights.”  Dale, 530 U. S., at 659. 

CLS would have us engage each line of cases independ­
ently,  but  its  expressive-association  and  free-speech  ar­
guments  merge:  Who  speaks  on  its  behalf,  CLS  reasons, 
colors  what  concept  is  conveyed.  See  Brief  for  Petitioner 
35  (expressive  association  in  this  case  is  “the  functional 
—————— 

12 Our  decisions  make  clear,  and  the  parties  agree,  that  Hastings, 
through  its  RSO  program,  established  a  limited  public  forum.  See 
Rosenberger  v.  Rector  and  Visitors  of  Univ.  of  Va.,  515  U. S.  819,  829 
(1995); Tr. of Oral Arg. 24 (counsel for CLS); Brief for Petitioner 25–26; 
Brief for Hastings 27–28; Brief for Hastings Outlaw 27.