Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/09pdf/08-1371.pdf
Page Number: 53

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

5 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

When CLS applied for registration, Judy Hansen Chap-
man, the Director of  Hastings’  Office of Student Services, 
sent  an  e-mail  to  an  officer  of  the  chapter  informing  him 
that  “CLS’s  bylaws  did  not  appear  to  be  compliant”  with
the  Hastings  Nondiscrimination  Policy,  App.  228,  277,  a
written  policy  that  provides  in  pertinent  part  that  “[t]he
University of California, Hastings College of the Law shall 
not  discriminate  unlawfully  on  the  basis  of  race,  color,
religion,  national  origin,  ancestry,  disability,  age,  sex  or
sexual  orientation,”  id.,  at  220.  As  far  as  the  record  re-
flects,  Ms.  Chapman  made  no  mention  of  an  accept-all-
applicants policy.

A few  days later, three officers of the chapter met  with
Ms. Chapman, and she reiterated that the CLS bylaws did
not comply with “the religion and sexual orientation provi-
sions of the Nondiscrimination Policy and that they would 
need  to  be  amended  in  order  for  CLS  to  become  a  regis-
tered  student  organization.”    Id.,  at  228.    About  a  week 
later, Hastings sent CLS a letter to the same effect.  Id., at 
228–229, 293–295.  On both of these occasions, it appears 
that  not  a  word  was  said  about  an  accept-all-comers
policy.

When  CLS  refused  to  change  its  membership  require-
ments,  Hastings  denied  its  request  for  registration—thus
making CLS the only student group whose application for 
registration has ever been rejected.  Brief in Opposition 4.
In  October  2004,  CLS  brought  this  action  under  42
U. S. C.  §1983  against  the  law  school’s  dean  and  other 
school officials, claiming, among other things, that the law 
school,  by  enacting  and  enforcing  the  Nondiscrimination
Policy,  had  violated  CLS’s  First  Amendment  right  to
freedom of speech.  App. 78.

In  May  2005,  Hastings  filed  an  answer  to  CLS’s  first 
amended complaint and made an admission that is signifi-
cant  for  present  purposes.    In  its  complaint,  CLS  had
alleged  that  the  Nondiscrimination  Policy  discriminates