Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/09pdf/08-1371.pdf
Page Number: 18.0

12 

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

its  target  to  Hastings’  policy  as  written.    This  opinion,
therefore, considers only whether conditioning access to a 
student-organization  forum  on  compliance  with  an  all­
comers policy violates the Constitution.10 

III 

A 

In  support  of  the  argument  that  Hastings’  all-comers
policy treads on its First Amendment rights to free speech 
and  expressive  association,  CLS  draws  on  two  lines  of 
decisions.  First, in a progression of cases, this Court has
employed forum analysis to determine when a governmen­
tal entity, in regulating property in its charge, may place 
limitations  on  speech.11    Recognizing  a  State’s  right  “to
preserve  the  property  under  its  control  for  the  use  to
which it is lawfully dedicated,” Cornelius v. NAACP Legal 
Defense & Ed. Fund, Inc., 473 U. S. 788, 800 (1985) (inter­

—————— 

10 The  dissent,  in  contrast,  devotes  considerable  attention  to  CLS’s 
arguments about the Nondiscrimination Policy as written.  Post, at 2, 3, 
5, 18–23.  We decline to address these arguments, not because we agree 
with  the  dissent  that  the  Nondiscrimination  Policy  is  “plainly”  uncon­
stitutional,  post,  at  18,  but  because,  as  noted,  supra,  at  8–12,  that 
constitutional question is not properly presented. 

11 In  conducting  forum  analysis,  our  decisions  have  sorted  govern­
ment property into three categories.  First, in traditional public forums, 
such as public streets and parks, “any restriction based on the content
of  . . .  speech  must  satisfy  strict  scrutiny,  that  is,  the  restriction  must
be  narrowly  tailored  to  serve  a  compelling  government  interest.” 
Pleasant  Grove  City  v.  Summum,  555  U. S.  ___  (2009)  (slip  op.,  at  6). 
Second,  governmental  entities  create  designated  public  forums  when 
“government  property  that  has  not  traditionally  been  regarded  as  a
public  forum  is  intentionally  opened  up  for  that  purpose”;  speech 
restrictions in such a forum “are subject to the same strict scrutiny as
restrictions  in  a  traditional  public  forum.”    Id.,  at  ___  (slip  op.,  at  7).
Third, governmental entities establish limited public forums by opening
property  “limited  to  use  by  certain  groups  or  dedicated  solely  to  the 
discussion  of  certain  subjects.”  Ibid.    As  noted  in  text,  “[i]n  such  a 
forum,  a  governmental  entity  may  impose  restrictions  on  speech  that
are reasonable and viewpoint-neutral.”  Ibid.