Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/09pdf/08-1371.pdf
Page Number: 12.0

6 

CHRISTIAN LEGAL SOC. CHAPTER OF UNIV. OF CAL., 

HASTINGS COLLEGE OF LAW v. MARTINEZ 

Opinion of the Court 

ual conduct.”  App. 226.  CLS also excludes students who 
hold  religious  convictions  different  from  those  in  the 
Statement of Faith.  Id., at 227. 

On  September  17,  2004,  CLS  submitted  to  Hastings  an 
application  for  RSO  status,  accompanied  by  all  required 
documents, including the set of bylaws mandated by CLS-
National.  Id.,  at  227–228.    Several  days  later,  the  Law 
School  rejected  the  application;  CLS’s  bylaws,  Hastings
explained,  did  not  comply  with  the  Nondiscrimination
Policy because CLS barred students based on religion and 
sexual orientation.  Id., at 228. 

CLS formally requested an exemption from the Nondis­
crimination  Policy,  id.,  at  281,  but  Hastings  declined  to 
grant  one.  “[T]o  be  one  of  our  student-recognized  organi­
zations,”  Hastings  reiterated,  “CLS  must  open  its  mem­
bership  to  all  students  irrespective  of  their  religious  be­
liefs  or  sexual  orientation.”  Id.,  at  294.  If  CLS  instead 
chose  to  operate  outside  the  RSO  program,  Hastings 
stated,  the  school  “would  be  pleased  to  provide  [CLS]  the
use  of  Hastings  facilities  for  its  meetings  and  activities.” 
Ibid.    CLS  would  also  have  access  to  chalkboards  and 
generally available campus bulletin boards to announce its 
events.  Id., at 219, 233.  In other words, Hastings would 
do nothing to suppress CLS’s endeavors, but neither would 
it lend RSO-level support for them.

Refusing  to  alter  its  bylaws,  CLS  did  not  obtain  RSO 
status.  It did, however, operate independently during the 
2004–2005  academic  year.  CLS  held  weekly  Bible-study 
meetings  and  invited  Hastings  students  to  Good  Friday 
and  Easter  Sunday  church  services.    Id.,  at  229.  It  also 
hosted  a  beach  barbeque,  Thanksgiving  dinner,  campus
lecture  on  the  Christian  faith  and  the  legal  practice,  sev­
eral fellowship dinners, an end-of-year banquet, and other 
informal social activities.  Ibid. 

On  October  22,  2004,  CLS  filed  suit  against  various 
Hastings  officers  and  administrators  under  42  U. S. C.