Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/09pdf/08-1371.pdf
Page Number: 82

34 

CHRISTIAN LEGAL SOC. CHAPTER OF UNIV. OF CAL., 
HASTINGS COLLEGE OF LAW v. MARTINEZ 
ALITO, J., dissenting 

Office  of  Student  Services,  which  was  charged  with  re-
viewing the bylaws of applicant groups to ensure that they 
were in compliance with the law school’s policies. 

Nonenforcement.  Since it appears that no one was told
about  the  accept-all-comers  policy  before  July  2005,  it  is
not  surprising  that  the  policy  was  not  enforced.    The  re-
cord is replete with evidence that Hastings made no effort 
to  enforce  the  all-comers  policy  until  after  it  was  pro-
claimed  by  the  former  dean.  See,  e.g.,  App.  to  Pet.  for 
Cert.  118a  (Hastings  Democratic  Caucus);  id.,  at  110a 
(Association of Trial Lawyers of America at Hastings); id., 
at 146a–147a (Vietnamese American Law  Society);  id.,  at 
142a–143a (Silent Right); App. 192 (La Raza).  See gener-
ally  supra,  at  7–8.    If  the  record  here  is  not  sufficient  to 
permit a finding of pretext, then the law of pretext is dead.
The  Court—understandably—sidesteps  this  issue.  The 
Court  states  that  the  lower  courts  did  not  address  the 
“argument that Hastings selectively enforces its all-comer
policy,”11 that “this Court is not the proper forum to air the 
issue  in  the  first  instance,”  and  that  “[o]n  remand,  the
Ninth  Circuit  may  consider  CLS’s  pretext  argument  if,
and to the extent, it is preserved.”  Ante, at 31–32. 

Because  the  Court  affirms  the  entry  of  summary  judg-
ment in favor of respondents, it is not clear how CLS will 
be  able  to  ask  the  Ninth  Circuit  on  remand  to  review  its 
claim  of  pretext.  And  the  argument  that  we  should  not 
—————— 

11 As  previously  noted,  CLS  consistently  argued  in  the  courts  below 
that  Hastings  had  applied  its  registration  policy  in  a  discriminatory 
manner.    See  supra,  at  9–10,  n. 1.    The  Court  would  ignore  these
arguments because counsel for CLS acknowledged below that Hastings 
has an all-comers policy.  See ante, at 9, n. 5 (quoting examples).  But 
as  the  Court  itself  acknowledges,  counsel  for  CLS  stated  at  oral  argu-
ment in this Court that “the Court needs to . . . reach the constitution-
ality of the all-comers policy as applied to CLS in this case.”  Tr. of Oral 
Arg.  59  (emphasis  added);  ante,  at  9,  n. 5.    And  as  the  record  shows, 
CLS has never ceded its argument that Hastings applies its accept-all-
comers policy unequally.