Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/09pdf/08-1371.pdf
Page Number: 30.0

24 

CHRISTIAN LEGAL SOC. CHAPTER OF UNIV. OF CAL., 
HASTINGS COLLEGE OF LAW v. MARTINEZ 
Opinion of the Court 

people  of  California  disapprove.”    Brief  for  Hastings  35; 
id.,  at  33–34  (citing  Cal.  Educ.  Code  §66270  (prohibiting 
discrimination  on  various  bases)).   State  law,  of  course, 
may  not  command  that  public  universities  take  action
impermissible under the First Amendment.  But so long as 
a  public  university  does  not  contravene  constitutional 
limits,  its  choice  to  advance  state-law  goals  through  the
school’s educational endeavors stands on firm footing. 

In  sum,  the  several  justifications  Hastings  asserts  in 

support  of  its  all-comers  requirement  are  surely  reason­
able in light of the RSO forum’s purposes.20 

3 

The  Law  School’s  policy  is  all  the  more  creditworthy  in 
view  of  the  “substantial  alternative  channels  that  remain 
open  for  [CLS-student]  communication  to  take  place.” 
Perry Ed. Assn., 460 U. S., at 53.  If restrictions on access 
to a limited public forum are viewpoint discriminatory, the 
ability of a group to exist outside the forum would not cure 
the constitutional shortcoming.  But when access barriers 
are  viewpoint  neutral,  our  decisions  have  counted  it  sig­
nificant  that  other  available  avenues  for  the  group  to 
exercise  its  First  Amendment  rights  lessen  the  burden
created by those barriers.  See ibid.; Cornelius, 473 U. S., 
at 809; Greer v. Spock, 424 U. S. 828, 839 (1976); Pell, 417 
U. S., at 827–828. 

In this case, Hastings offered CLS access to school facili­
ties  to  conduct  meetings  and  the  use  of  chalkboards  and
generally  available  bulletin  boards  to  advertise  events.
App. 232–233.  Although CLS could not take advantage of 
RSO-specific  methods  of  communication,  see  supra,  at  3, 
the advent of electronic media and social-networking sites
reduces the importance of those channels.  See App. 114– 

—————— 

20 Although  the  Law  School  has  offered  multiple  justifications  for  its
all-comers policy, we do not suggest that each of them is necessary for 
the policy to survive constitutional review.