Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/09pdf/08-1371.pdf
Page Number: 32.0

26 

CHRISTIAN LEGAL SOC. CHAPTER OF UNIV. OF CAL., 
HASTINGS COLLEGE OF LAW v. MARTINEZ 
Opinion of the Court 

4 
CLS  nevertheless  deems  Hastings’  all-comers  policy 
“frankly absurd.”  Brief for Petitioner 49.  “There can be no 
diversity  of  viewpoints  in  a  forum,”  it  asserts,  “if  groups
are not permitted to form around viewpoints.”  Id., at 50; 
accord post, at 25 (ALITO, J., dissenting).  This catchphrase
confuses CLS’s preferred policy with constitutional limita­
tion—the  advisability  of  Hastings’  policy  does  not  control 
its permissibility.  See Wood v. Strickland, 420 U. S. 308, 
326  (1975).  Instead,  we  have  repeatedly  stressed  that  a 
State’s  restriction  on  access  to  a  limited  public  forum 
“need  not  be  the  most  reasonable  or  the  only  reasonable 
limitation.”  Cornelius, 473 U. S., at 808.22 

CLS  also  assails  the  reasonableness  of  the  all-comers 
policy  in  light  of  the  RSO  forum’s  function  by  forecasting
that the policy will facilitate hostile takeovers; if organiza­
tions must open their arms to all, CLS contends, saboteurs 
will  infiltrate  groups  to  subvert  their  mission  and  mes­
sage.  This  supposition  strikes  us  as  more  hypothetical
than  real.  CLS  points  to  no  history  or  prospect  of  RSO­
hijackings at Hastings.  Cf. National Endowment for Arts 
v.  Finley,  524  U. S.  569,  584  (1998)  (“[W]e  are  reluctant
. . . to invalidate legislation on the basis of its hypothetical
application  to  situations  not  before  the  Court.”  (internal 
quotation marks omitted)).  Students tend to self-sort and 
presumably  will  not  endeavor  en  masse  to  join—let  alone 

—————— 

22 CLS’s  concern,  shared  by  the  dissent,  see  post,  at  25–26,  that  an 
all-comers  policy  will  squelch  diversity  has  not  been  borne  out  by 
Hastings’ experience.  In the 2004–2005 academic year, approximately
60 student organizations, representing a variety of interests, registered
with  Hastings,  from  the  Clara  Foltz  Feminist  Association,  to  the 
Environmental Law Society, to the Hastings Chinese Law and Culture 
Society.  App. 215, 237–238.  Three of these 60 registered groups had a
religious  orientation:  Hastings  Association  of  Muslim  Law  Students, 
Hastings  Jewish  Law  Students  Association,  and  Hastings  Koinonia. 
Id., at 215–216.