Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/09pdf/08-1371.pdf
Page Number: 2.0

2 

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

HASTINGS COLLEGE OF LAW v. MARTINEZ 

Syllabus 

Hastings  rejected  CLS’s  application  for  RSO  status  on  the  ground 
that  the  group’s  bylaws  did  not  comply  with  Hastings’  open-access 
policy  because  they  excluded  students  based  on  religion  and  sexual
orientation. 

CLS  filed  this  suit  for  injunctive  and  declaratory  relief  under  42 
U. S. C.  §1983,  alleging  that  Hastings’  refusal  to  grant  the  group 
RSO  status  violated  its  First  and  Fourteenth  Amendment  rights  to
free speech, expressive association, and free exercise of religion.  On 
cross-motions  for  summary  judgment,  the  District  Court  ruled  for
Hastings.  The court held that the all-comers condition on access to a 
limited public forum was both reasonable and viewpoint neutral, and
therefore  did  not  violate  CLS’s  right  to  free  speech.    Nor,  in  the 
court’s  view,  did  Hastings  impermissibly  impair  CLS’s  right  to  ex-
pressive  association:  Hastings  did  not  order  CLS  to  admit  any  stu-
dent, nor did the school proscribe any speech; Hastings merely placed
conditions on the use of school facilities and funds.  The court also re-
jected CLS’s free exercise argument, stating that the Nondiscrimina-
tion Policy did not single out religious beliefs, but rather was neutral 
and of general applicability.  The Ninth Circuit affirmed, ruling that 
the  all-comers  condition  on  RSO  recognition  was  reasonable  and 
viewpoint neutral. 

Held: 

1. The  Court  considers  only  whether  a  public  institution’s  condi-
tioning access to a student-organization forum on compliance with an
all-comers  policy  violates  the  Constitution.    CLS  urges  the  Court  to 
review, instead, the Nondiscrimination Policy as written—prohibiting
discrimination  on  enumerated  bases,  including  religion  and  sexual
orientation.  The  policy’s  written  terms,  CLS  contends,  target  solely
those groups that organize around religious beliefs or that disapprove 
of  particular  sexual  behavior,  and  leave  other  associations  free  to
limit membership to persons committed to the group’s ideology.  This 
argument  flatly  contradicts  the  joint  stipulation  of  facts  the  parties 
submitted  at  the  summary-judgment  stage,  which  specified:  “Hast-
ings  requires  that  [RSOs]  allow  any  student  to  participate,  . . .  re-
gardless of [her] status or beliefs.  For example, the Hastings Democ-
ratic Caucus cannot bar students holding Republican political beliefs
. . . .”  This Court has long recognized that parties are bound by, and 
cannot  contradict,  their  stipulations.    See,  e.g.,  Board  of  Regents  of 
Univ.  of  Wis.  System  v.  Southworth,  529  U. S.  217,  226.    The  Court 
therefore  rejects  CLS’s  attempt  to  escape  from  the  stipulation  and
shift its target to Hastings’ policy as written.  Pp. 8–12.

2. The  all-comers  policy  is  a  reasonable,  viewpoint-neutral  condi-
tion  on  access  to  the  RSO  forum;  it  therefore  does  not  transgress 
First Amendment limitations.  Pp. 12–31.