Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/09pdf/08-1371.pdf
Page Number: 57

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

9 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

foreclose  neutral  and  generally  applicable  membership 
requirements  unrelated  to  ‘status  or  beliefs.’ ”    Brief  for 
Respondent  Hastings  College  of  Law  5.    Hastings’  brief
goes  on  to  note  with  seeming  approval  that  some  regis-
tered  groups  have  imposed  “even  conduct  requirements.” 
Ibid.  Hastings,  however,  has  not  told  us  which  “conduct 
requirements”  are  allowed  and  which  are  not—although
presumably  requirements  regarding  sexual  conduct  fall
into the latter category.

When  this  case  was  in  the  District  Court,  that  court 
took  care  to  address  both  the  Nondiscrimination  Policy
and the accept-all-comers policy.  See, e.g., App. to Pet. for
Cert.  8a–9a,  16a–17a,  21a–24a,  26a,  27a,  32a,  44a,  63a. 
On appeal, however, a panel of the Ninth Circuit, like the 
Court today, totally ignored the Nondiscrimination Policy. 
CLS’s  argument  in  the  Ninth  Circuit  centered  on  the
Nondiscrimination Policy, and CLS argued strenuously, as
it had in the District Court, that prior to the former dean’s
deposition,  numerous  groups  had  been  permitted  to  re-
strict  membership  to  students  who  shared  the  groups’
views.1  Nevertheless, the Ninth Circuit disposed of CLS’s 

—————— 

1 CLS consistently argued in  the courts below that Hastings had ap-
plied  its  registration  policy  in  a  discriminatory  manner.    See,  e.g., 
Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum 
in  Support  of  Motion  for  Summary  Judgment  in  No. C  04–4484–JSW
(ND Cal.), pp. 6–7 (“Hastings allows other registered student organiza-
tions  to  require  that  their  members  and/or  leaders  agree  with  the 
organization’s beliefs and purposes”).  CLS took pains to bring forward 
evidence to substantiate this claim.  See supra, at 7–8. 

CLS’s  brief  in  the  Court  of  Appeals  reiterated  its  contention  that 
Hastings  had  not  required  all  RSOs  to  admit  all  student  applicants.
CLS’s  brief  stated  that  “Hastings  allows  other  registered  student 
organizations to require that their leaders and/or members agree with 
the organization’s beliefs and purposes.”  Brief for Appellant in No. 06– 
15956 (CA9), pp. 14–15 (citing examples).  See also id., at 54–55 (“Hast-
ings  routinely  recognizes  student  groups  that  limit  membership  or
leadership  on  the  basis  of  belief.  .  .  .  Hastings’  actual  practice  demon-
strates that the forum is not reserved to student organizations that do