Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/09pdf/08-1371.pdf
Page Number: 54

6 

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

HASTINGS COLLEGE OF LAW v. MARTINEZ 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

Id.,  at  79. 

against religious groups because it prohibits those groups 
“from  selecting  officers  and  members  dedicated  to  a  par-
ticular set of religious ideals or beliefs” but “permits politi-
cal,  social  and  cultural  student  organizations  to  select 
officers  and  members  dedicated  to  their  organization’s 
In  response,  Hastings
ideals  and  beliefs.” 
admitted that its Nondiscrimination Policy “permits politi-
cal,  social,  and  cultural  student  organizations  to  select 
officers and members who are dedicated to a particular set 
of  ideals  or  beliefs.”    Id.,  at  93.  The  Court  states  that 
“Hastings  interprets  the  Nondiscrimination  Policy,  as  it 
relates to the RSO program, to mandate acceptance of all 
comers.”  Ante,  at  4.    But  this  admission  in  Hastings’ 
answer  shows  that  Hastings  had  not  adopted  this  inter-
pretation when its answer was filed. 

Within  a  few  months,  however,  Hastings’  position
changed.  In July 2005, Mary Kay Kane, then the dean of 
the law school, was deposed, and she stated: “It is my view 
that  in  order  to  be  a  registered  student  organization  you 
have  to  allow  all  of  our  students  to  be  members  and  full 
participants if they want to.”  App. 343.  In a declaration 
filed  in  October  2005,  Ms.  Chapman  provided  a  more
developed  explanation,  stating:  “Hastings  interprets  the 
Nondiscrimination  Policy  as  requiring  that  student  or-
ganizations  wishing  to  register  with  Hastings  allow  any
Hastings student to become a member and/or seek a lead-
ership position in the organization.”  Id., at 349. 

Hastings  claims  that  this  accept-all-comers  policy  has
existed since 1990 but points to no evidence that the policy 
was  ever  put  in  writing  or  brought  to  the  attention  of
members  of  the  law  school  community  prior  to  the  dean’s 
deposition.    Indeed,  Hastings  has  adduced  no  evidence  of
the  policy’s  existence  before  that  date.  And  while  Dean 
Kane  and  Ms.  Chapman  stated,  well  after  this  litigation 
had  begun,  that  Hastings  had  such  a  policy,  neither  they
nor any other Hastings official has ever stated in a deposi-