Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/09pdf/08-1371.pdf
Page Number: 49

Cite as:  561 U. S. ____ (2010) 

1 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 08–1371 
_________________ 

CHRISTIAN LEGAL SOCIETY CHAPTER OF THE UNI- 

VERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, HASTINGS COLLEGE OF 

THE LAW, AKA HASTINGS CHRISTIAN FELLOW- 

SHIP, PETITIONER v. LEO P. MARTINEZ ET AL. 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 

APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

[June 28, 2010] 

JUSTICE ALITO, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE 

SCALIA, and JUSTICE THOMAS join, dissenting. 

The  proudest  boast  of  our  free  speech  jurisprudence  is 
that  we  protect  the  freedom  to  express  “the  thought  that
we  hate.”  United  States  v.  Schwimmer,  279  U. S.  644, 
654–655 (1929) (Holmes, J., dissenting).  Today’s decision
rests  on  a  very  different  principle:  no  freedom  for  expres-
sion  that  offends  prevailing  standards  of  political  correct-
ness in our country’s institutions of higher learning. 

The  Hastings  College  of  the  Law,  a  state  institution,
permits  student  organizations  to  register  with  the  law
school  and  severely  burdens  speech  by  unregistered 
groups.  Hastings  currently  has  more  than  60  registered 
groups  and,  in  all  its  history,  has  denied  registration  to 
exactly  one:  the  Christian  Legal  Society  (CLS).  CLS 
claims that Hastings refused to register the group because 
the  law  school  administration  disapproves  of  the  group’s 
viewpoint and thus violated the group’s free speech rights. 
Rejecting  this  argument,  the  Court  finds  that  it  has
been  Hastings’  policy  for  20  years  that  all  registered  or-
ganizations  must  admit  any  student  who  wishes  to  join. 
Deferring  broadly  to  the  law  school’s  judgment  about  the 
permissible  limits  of  student  debate,  the  Court  concludes