Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/09pdf/08-1371.pdf
Page Number: 25

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

19 

Opinion of the Court 

ute a newspaper because the publication discussed issues
from  a  Christian  perspective.    515  U. S.,  at  825–827.    By
“select[ing] for disfavored treatment those student journal­
istic  efforts  with  religious  editorial  viewpoints,”  we  held, 
the  university  had  engaged  in  “viewpoint  discrimination,
which  is  presumed  impermissible  when  directed  against 
speech  otherwise  within  the  forum’s  limitations.”    Id.,  at 
831, 830. 

In  all  three  cases,  we  ruled  that  student  groups  had
been unconstitutionally singled out because of their points
of view.  “Once it has opened a limited [public] forum,” we 
emphasized,  “the  State  must  respect  the  lawful  bounda­
ries it has itself set.”  Id., at 829.  The constitutional con­
straints  on  the  boundaries  the  State  may  set  bear  repeti­
tion  here:  “The  State  may  not  exclude  speech  where  its 
distinction is not reasonable in light of the purpose served 
by  the  forum,  . . .  nor  may  it  discriminate  against  speech 
on  the  basis  of  . . .  viewpoint.”    Ibid.  (internal  quotation
marks omitted). 

C 
We first consider whether Hastings’ policy is reasonable 
taking into account the RSO forum’s function and “all the 
surrounding circumstances.”  Cornelius, 473 U. S., at 809. 

1 
Our  inquiry  is  shaped  by  the  educational  context  in
which  it  arises:  “First  Amendment  rights,”  we  have  ob­
served, “must be analyzed in light of the special character­
istics  of  the  school  environment.”    Widmar,  454  U. S.,  at 
268,  n. 5  (internal  quotation  marks  omitted).    This  Court 
is  the  final  arbiter  of  the  question  whether  a  public  uni­
versity  has  exceeded  constitutional  constraints,  and  we
owe  no  deference  to  universities  when  we  consider  that 
question.  Cf.  Pell  v.  Procunier,  417  U. S.  817,  827  (1974) 
(“Courts  cannot,  of  course,  abdicate  their  constitutional