Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/09pdf/08-1371.pdf
Page Number: 79

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

31 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

little support for the majority’s suggested interpretation. 

In sum, Hastings’ accept-all-comers policy is not reason-
able in light of the stipulated purpose of the RSO forum: to 
promote  a  diversity  of  viewpoints  “among”—not  within— 
“registered  student  organizations.”  App.  216  (emphasis 
added).9 

B 
The  Court  is  also  wrong  in  holding  that  the  accept-all-
comers  policy  is  viewpoint  neutral.    The  Court  proclaims
that  it  would  be  “hard  to  imagine  a  more  viewpoint-
neutral policy,” ante, at 28, but I would not be so quick to
jump  to  this  conclusion.  Even  if  it  is  assumed  that  the 
policy  is  viewpoint  neutral  on  its  face,10  there  is  strong 

—————— 

9 Although  we  have  held  that  the  sponsor  of  a  limited  public  forum 
“must respect the lawful boundaries it has itself set,” Rosenberger, 515 
U.  S.,  at  829,  the  Court  now  says  that,  if  the  exclusion  of  a  group  is
challenged, the sponsor can retroactively redraw the boundary lines in
order  to  justify  the  exclusion.    See  ante,  at  21,  n.  17.    This  approach 
does not respect our prior holding. 

10 In  Board  of  Regents  of  Univ.  of  Wis.  System  v.  Southworth,  529 
U. S. 217 (2000), the Court considered a university rule permitting the
“defund[ing]”  of  a  registered  student  group  through  a  student  referen-
dum.  See  id.,  at  224–225.    “To  the  extent  the  referendum  substitutes 
majority  determinations  for  viewpoint  neutrality,”  the  Court  observed, 
“it  would  undermine  the  constitutional  protection  the  [university’s 
registered  student  organization]  program  requires.”    Id.,  at  235.  “The 
whole theory of viewpoint neutrality is that minority views are treated 
with the same respect as are majority views.”  Ibid. 

Hastings’ accept-all-comers policy bears a resemblance to the South-
wark referendum process.  Both permit the majority to silence a disfa-
vored  organization.    There  is  force  to  CLS’s  argument  that  “[a]llowing
all students to join and lead any group, even when they disagree with
it,  is  tantamount  to  establishing  a  majoritarian  heckler’s  veto”  and 
“potentially turn[s] every group into an organ for the already-dominant
opinion.”  Brief for Petitioner 51. 

The Court attempts to distinguish Southworth as involving a funding
mechanism  for  student  groups  that  operated  selectively,  based  on
groups’ viewpoints.  Ante, at 29, n. 25.  But that mechanism—a student 
referendum  process—placed  all  students  at  risk  of  “being  required  to