Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/09pdf/08-1371.pdf
Page Number: 56

8 

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

HASTINGS COLLEGE OF LAW v. MARTINEZ 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

ATLA.”  Id., at 110a.  A student could become a member of 
the  Vietnamese  American  Law  Society  so  long  as  the 
student did not “exhibit a consistent disregard and lack of 
respect  for  the  objective  of  the  organization,”  which  cen-
ters  on  a  “celebrat[ion]  [of]  Vietnamese  culture.”    Id.,  at 
146a–147a.  Silenced Right  limited  voting  membership  to
students  who  “are  committed”  to  the  group’s  “mission”  of 
“spread[ing] the pro-life message.”  Id., at 142a–143a.  La 
Raza  limited  voting  membership  to  “students  of  Raza
background.”  App.  192.    Since  Hastings  requires  any 
student group applying for registration to submit a copy of
its bylaws, see id., at 249–250, Hastings cannot claim that 
it was unaware of such provisions.  And as noted, CLS was 
denied  registration  precisely  because  Ms.  Chapman  re-
viewed its bylaws and found them unacceptable. 

We  are  told  that,  when  CLS  pointed  out  these  discrep-
ancies  during  this  litigation,  Hastings  took  action  to  en-
sure  that  student  groups  were  in fact  complying  with  the 
law school’s newly disclosed accept-all-comers policy.  For 
example,  Hastings  asked  La  Raza  to  revise  its  bylaws  to
allow all students to become voting members.  App. to Pet. 
for Cert. 66a.  See also Brief for State of Michigan et al. as 
Amici  Curiae  2,  n. 1  (relating  anecdotally  that  Hastings
recently  notified  the  Hastings  Democrats  that  “to  main-
tain  the  Club’s  standing  as  a  student  organization,”  it 
must  “open  its  membership  to  all  students,  regardless  of
party affiliation”).  These belated remedial efforts suggest, 
if anything, that Hastings had no accept-all-comers policy 
until this litigation was well under way. 

Finally,  when  Hastings  filed  its  brief  in  this  Court,  its
policy, which had already evolved from a policy prohibiting
certain specified forms of discrimination into an accept-all-
comers  policy,  underwent  yet  another  transformation. 
Now,  Hastings  claims  that  it  does  not  really  have  an
accept-all-comers  policy;  it  has  an  accept-some-comers 
policy.  Hastings’  current  policy,  we  are  told,  “does  not