Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/09pdf/08-1371.pdf
Page Number: 22

16 

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

468 U. S., at 623 (“There can be no clearer example of 
an  intrusion  into  the  internal  structure  or  affairs  of 
an  association  than”  forced  inclusion  of  unwelcome 
participants.).14 

In  diverse  contexts,  our  decisions  have  distinguished
between  policies  that  require  action  and  those  that  with­
hold  benefits.  See,  e.g.,  Grove  City  College  v.  Bell,  465 
U. S.  555,  575–576  (1984);  Bob  Jones  Univ.  v.  United 
States,  461  U. S.  574,  602–604  (1983).    Application  of  the
less-restrictive  limited-public-forum  analysis  better  ac­
counts  for  the  fact  that  Hastings,  through  its  RSO  pro­
gram,  is  dangling  the  carrot  of  subsidy,  not  wielding  the 
stick  of  prohibition.  Cf.  Norwood  v.  Harrison,  413  U. S. 
455,  463  (1973)  (“That  the  Constitution  may  compel  tol­
eration  of  private  discrimination  in  some  circumstances 
does  not  mean  that  it  requires  state  support  for  such 
discrimination.”).

In sum, we are persuaded that our limited-public-forum
precedents  adequately  respect  both  CLS’s  speech  and 
expressive-association  rights,  and  fairly  balance  those 
rights  against  Hastings’  interests  as  property  owner  and
educational  institution.  We  turn  to  the  merits  of  the 

—————— 

14 CLS also brackets with expressive-association precedents our deci­
sion  in  Hurley  v.  Irish-American  Gay,  Lesbian  and  Bisexual  Group  of 
Boston, Inc., 515 U. S. 557 (1995).  There, a veterans group sponsoring
a St. Patrick’s Day parade challenged a state law requiring it to allow 
gay  individuals  to  march  in  the  parade  behind  a  banner  celebrating
their Irish heritage and sexual orientation.  Id., at 572.  In evaluating 
that  challenge,  the  Hurley  Court  focused  on  the  veterans  group’s
interest  in  controlling  the message  conveyed  by  the  organization.    See 
id., at 573–581.  Whether Hurley is best conceptualized as a speech or 
association  case  (or  both),  however,  that  precedent  is  of  little  help  to
CLS.  Hurley 
involved  the  application  of  a  statewide  public­
accommodations  law  to  the  most  traditional  of  public  forums:  the 
street.  That context differs markedly from the limited public forum at
issue  here:  a  university’s  application  of  an  all-comers  policy  to  its
student-organization program.