Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/09pdf/08-1371.pdf
Page Number: 45.0

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

1 

KENNEDY, J., concurring 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 08–1371 
_________________ 

CHRISTIAN LEGAL SOCIETY CHAPTER OF THE UNI- 

VERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, HASTINGS COLLEGE OF 

THE LAW, AKA HASTINGS CHRISTIAN FELLOW- 

SHIP, PETITIONER v. LEO P. MARTINEZ ET AL. 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 

APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

[June 28, 2010] 

JUSTICE KENNEDY, concurring. 
To be effective, a limited forum often will exclude some 
speakers  based  on  their  affiliation  (e.g.,  student  versus 
nonstudent) or based on the content of their speech, inter-
ests,  and  expertise  (e.g.,  art  professor  not  chosen  as 
speaker  for  conference  on  public  transit).    When  the  gov-
ernment  does  exclude  from  a  limited  forum,  however, 
other content-based judgments may be impermissible.  For 
instance, an otherwise qualified and relevant speaker may 
not be excluded because of hostility to his or her views or 
beliefs.  See  Healy  v.  James,  408  U. S.  169,  187–188 
(1972).

In Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 
U. S.  819  (1995),  the  essential  purpose  of  the  limited 
forum was to facilitate the expression of differing views in 
the  context  of  student  publications.    The  forum  was  lim-
ited  because  it  was  confined:  first,  to  student-run  groups;
and second, to publications.  The forum was created in the 
long tradition of using newspapers and other publications
to  express  differing  views  and  also  in  the  honored  tradi-
tion  of  a  university  setting  that  stimulates  the  free  ex-
change  of  ideas.  See id.,  at  835  (“[I]n  the  University  set-
ting, . . . the State acts against a background and tradition