Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/09pdf/08-1371.pdf
Page Number: 33

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

27 

Opinion of the Court 

seek  leadership  positions  in—groups  pursuing  missions 
wholly at odds with their personal beliefs.  And if a rogue
student  intent  on  sabotaging  an  organization’s  objectives 
nevertheless  attempted  a  takeover,  the  members  of  that 
group would not likely elect her as an officer. 

RSOs, moreover, in harmony with the all-comers policy,
may  condition  eligibility  for  membership  and  leadership
on  attendance,  the  payment  of  dues,  or  other  neutral 
requirements  designed  to  ensure  that  students  join  be­
cause  of  their  commitment  to  a  group’s  vitality,  not  its
demise.  See supra, at 4, n. 2.  Several RSOs at Hastings
limit their membership rolls and officer slates in just this 
way.  See, e.g., App. 192 (members must “[p]ay their dues 
on a timely basis” and “attend meetings regularly”); id., at 
173 (members must complete an application and pay dues;
“[a]ny  active  member  who  misses  a  semester  of  regularly 
scheduled  meetings  shall  be  dropped  from  rolls”);  App.  to
Pet.  for  Cert.  129a  (“Only  Hastings  students  who  have 
held  membership  in  this  organization  for  a  minimum  of 
one semester shall be eligible to be an officer.”).23 

Hastings,  furthermore,  could  reasonably  expect  more
from  its  law  students  than  the  disruptive  behavior  CLS 
hypothesizes—and to build this expectation into its educa­
tional  approach.  A  reasonable  policy  need  not  anticipate
and preemptively close off every opportunity for avoidance
or manipulation.  If students begin to exploit an all-comers
policy by hijacking organizations to distort or destroy their
missions,  Hastings  presumably  would  revisit  and  revise 
its  policy.    See  Tr.  of  Oral  Arg.  41  (counsel  for  Hastings); 
Brief for Hastings 38. 

Finally,  CLS  asserts  (and  the  dissent  repeats,  post,  at 

—————— 

23 As  Hastings  notes,  other  “checks  [are  also]  in  place”  to  prevent
RSO-sabotage.    Brief  for  Hastings  43,  n. 16.    “The  [Law]  School’s 
student code of conduct applies to RSO activities and, inter alia, prohib­
its  obstruction  or  disruption,  disorderly  conduct,  and  threats.”  Ibid. 
(internal quotation marks and brackets omitted).