Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/09pdf/08-1371.pdf
Page Number: 24.0

18 

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

We  later  relied  on  Healy  in  Widmar.  In  that  case,  a 
public  university,  in  an  effort  to  avoid  state  support  for 
religion,  had  closed  its  facilities  to  a  registered  student
group  that  sought  to  use  university  space  for  religious 
worship and discussion.  454 U. S., at 264–265.  “A univer­
sity’s mission is education,” we observed, “and decisions of
this  Court  have  never  denied  a  university’s  authority  to 
impose  reasonable  regulations  compatible  with  that  mis­
sion upon the use of its campus and facilities.”  Id., at 268, 
n. 5.  But  because  the  university  singled  out  religious
organizations  for  disadvantageous  treatment,  we  sub­
jected the university’s regulation to strict scrutiny.  Id., at 
269–270.  The  school’s  interest  “in  maintaining  strict
separation  of  church  and  State,”  we  held,  was  not  “suffi­
ciently compelling to justify . . . [viewpoint] discrimination 
against  . . .  religious  speech.”    Id.,  at  270,  276  (internal 
quotation marks omitted). 

Most  recently  and  comprehensively,  in  Rosenberger,  we 
reiterated  that  a  university  generally  may  not  withhold 
benefits  from  student  groups  because  of  their  religious
outlook.  The officially recognized student group in Rosen-
berger  was  denied  student-activity-fee  funding  to  distrib­
—————— 

basis  of  its  expressive  content,  acts  are  not  shielded  from  regulation 
merely because they express a discriminatory . . . philosophy.” (emphasis 
added)).  As  discussed  infra,  at  28–31,  Hastings’  all-comers  policy  is
paradigmatically viewpoint neutral.  The dissent’s contention that “the 
identity of the student group” is the only “way of distinguishing Healy,” 
post, at 16, is thus untenable. 

The  dissent’s  description  of  Healy  also  omits  the  Healy  Court’s 
observation that “[a] college administration may . . . requir[e] . . . that a
group  seeking  official  recognition  affirm  in  advance  its  willingness  to
adhere to reasonable campus law.  Such a requirement does not impose
an impermissible condition on the students’ associational rights. . . .  It 
merely constitutes an agreement to conform with reasonable standards
respecting  conduct. . . .    [T]he  benefits  of  participation  in  the  internal 
life of the college community may be denied to any group that reserves 
the  right  to  violate  any  valid  campus  rules  with  which  it  disagrees.”
408 U. S., at 193–194.