Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/09pdf/08-1371.pdf
Page Number: 78

30 

CHRISTIAN LEGAL SOC. CHAPTER OF UNIV. OF CAL., 
HASTINGS COLLEGE OF LAW v. MARTINEZ 
ALITO, J., dissenting 

would not justify the Hastings policy even if it were true—
but  it  is  not.  The  only  Hastings  policy  considered  by  the 
Court—the  accept-all-comers  policy—goes  far  beyond  any
California  antidiscrimination  law.  Neither  Hastings  nor 
the  Court  claims  that  California  law  demands  that  state 
entities  must  accept  all  comers.    Hastings  itself  certainly
does not follow this policy in hiring or student admissions. 
Nor  is  it  at  all  clear  that  California  law  requires  Hast-
ings  to  deny  registration  to  a  religious  group  that  limits
membership  to  students  who  share  the  group’s  religious 
beliefs.  Hastings  cites  no  California  court  decision  or
administrative  authority  addressing  this  question. 
In-
stead, Hastings points to a statute prohibiting discrimina-
tion  on  specified  grounds,  including  religion  or  sexual
orientation,  “in  any  program  or  activity  conducted  by” 
certain postsecondary educational institutions.  Cal. Educ. 
Code  Ann.  §66270  (West  Supp.  2010)  (emphasis  added). 
Hastings,  however,  does  not  conduct  the  activities  of  the
student  groups  it  registers.    Indeed,  Hastings  disclaims 
such responsibility, stating both in its regulations and its
Handbook  for  Student  Organizations  that  it  “does  not 
sponsor  student  organizations  and  therefore  does  not
accept  liability  for  activities  of  student  organizations.” 
App. to Pet. for Cert. 85a (Hastings Regulations §34.10.D);
App. 250.  In addition, as CLS notes, another provision of
California  law  specifically  exempts  “any  funds  that  are 
used  directly  or  indirectly  for  the  benefit  of  student  or-
ganizations” from a ban on state funding of private groups 
that  discriminate  on  any  of  the  grounds  listed  in  §66270. 
See §92150 (West Supp. 2010). 

The  authority  to  decide  whether  §66270  or  any  other 
provision  of  California  law  requires  religious  student
groups  at  covered  institutions  to  admit  members  who  do
not  share  the  groups’  religious  views  is  of  course  a  ques-
tion  of  state  law  that  we  cannot  resolve.  The  materials 
that have been brought to our attention, however, provide