Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/09pdf/08-1371.pdf
Page Number: 58

10 

CHRISTIAN LEGAL SOC. CHAPTER OF UNIV. OF CAL., 
HASTINGS COLLEGE OF LAW v. MARTINEZ 
ALITO, J., dissenting 

appeal  with  a  two-sentence,  not-precedential opinion  that
solely  addressed  the  accept-all-comers  policy.    Christian 
Legal Soc. Chapter of Univ. of Cal. v. Kane, 319 Fed. Appx.
645–646 (2009).

Like the majority of this Court, the Ninth Circuit relied 
on the following Joint  Stipulation, which  the parties filed 
in December 2005, well after Dean Kane’s deposition: 

“Hastings  requires  that  registered  student  organiza-
tions allow any student to participate, become a mem-
ber,  or  seek  leadership  positions  in  the  organization,
regardless of their status or beliefs.”  App. 221. 

Citing  the  binding  effect  of  stipulations,  the  majority 
sternly  rejects  what  it  terms  “CLS’s  unseemly  attempt  to
escape  from  the  stipulation  and  shift  its  target  to  [the
Nondiscrimination Policy].”  Ante, at 11–12. 

I  agree  that  the  parties  must  be  held  to  their  Joint
Stipulation,  but  the  terms  of  the  stipulation  should  be
respected.  What  was  admitted  in  the  Joint  Stipulation
filed in December 2005 is that Hastings had an accept-all-
comers  policy.  CLS  did  not  stipulate  that  its  application 
had been denied more than a year earlier pursuant to such
a policy.  On the contrary, the Joint Stipulation notes that 
the  reason  repeatedly  given  by  Hasting  at  that  time  was 
that  the  CLS  bylaws  did  not  comply  with  the  Nondis-
crimination Policy.  See App. 228–229.  Indeed, the parties
did  not  even  stipulate  that  the  accept-all-comers  policy
existed  in  the  fall  of  2004.  In  addition,  Hastings  itself  is
now  attempting  to  walk  away  from  this  stipulation  by 
disclosing  that  its  real  policy  is  an  accept-some-comers 
policy. 

—————— 

not  discriminate  on  the  basis  of  belief”).    Responding  to  these  argu-
ments,  the  law  school  remarked  that  CLS  “repeatedly  asserts  that
‘Hastings routinely recognizes student groups that limit membership or
leadership on the basis of belief.’ ”  Brief for Appellees in No. 06–15956 
(CA9), p. 4.