Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/09pdf/08-1371.pdf
Page Number: 13

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

7 

Opinion of the Court 

§1983.    Its  complaint  alleged  that  Hastings’  refusal  to
grant  the  organization  RSO  status  violated  CLS’s  First 
and Fourteenth Amendment rights to free speech, expres­
sive  association,  and  free  exercise  of  religion.    The  suit 
sought injunctive and declaratory relief.4 

On  cross-motions  for  summary  judgment,  the  U. S. 
District Court for the Northern District of California ruled 
in  favor  of  Hastings.    The  Law  School’s  all-comers  condi­
tion  on  access  to  a  limited  public  forum,  the  court  held,
was both reasonable and viewpoint neutral, and therefore 
did not violate CLS’s right to free speech.  App. to Pet. for
Cert. 27a–38a. 

Nor,  in  the  District  Court’s  view,  did  the  Law  School 

impermissibly  impair  CLS’s  right  to  expressive  associa­
tion.  “Hastings is not directly ordering CLS to admit [any] 
studen[t],” the court observed, id., at 42a; “[r]ather, Hast­
ings has merely placed conditions on” the use of its facili­
ties  and  funds,  ibid.   “Hastings’  denial  of  official  recogni­
tion,” the court added, “was not a substantial impediment
to CLS’s ability to meet and communicate as a group.”  Id., 
at 49a. 

The  court  also  rejected  CLS’s  Free  Exercise  Clause 
argument.    “[T]he  Nondiscrimination  Policy  does  not 
target  or  single  out  religious  beliefs,”  the  court  noted; 
rather, the policy “is neutral and of general applicability.” 
Id., at 63a.  “CLS may be motivated by its religious beliefs
to exclude students based on their religion or sexual orien­
tation,” the court explained, “but that does not convert the
reason  for  Hastings’  [Nondiscrimination  Policy]  to  be  one
that is religiously-based.”  Id., at 63a–64a. 

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed in an opinion that

stated, in full: 

—————— 

4 The  District  Court  allowed  respondent  Hastings  Outlaw,  an  RSO 
committed  to  “combating  discrimination  based  on  sexual  orientation,” 
id., at 97, to intervene in the suit, id., at 104.