Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/09pdf/08-1371.pdf
Page Number: 6

6 

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

HASTINGS COLLEGE OF LAW v. MARTINEZ 

Syllabus 

that  it  systematically—and  impermissibly—burdens  most  heavily
those  groups  whose  viewpoints  are  out  of  favor  with  the  campus 
mainstream.  This argument fails because “[a] regulation that serves 
purposes  unrelated  to  the  content  of  expression  is  deemed  neutral, 
even if it has an incidental effect on some speakers or messages but 
not others.”  Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U. S. 781, 791.  Hast-
ings’ requirement that RSOs accept all comers, the Court is satisfied,
is  “justified  without  reference  to  the  content  [or  viewpoint]  of  the
regulated speech.”  Id., at 791.  It targets the act of rejecting would-be
group members without reference to the reasons motivating that be-
havior.  Pp. 29–31.

3. Neither lower court addressed CLS’s argument that Hastings se-
lectively  enforces  its  all-comers  policy.    This  Court  is  not  the  proper
forum  to  air  the  issue  in  the  first  instance.    On  remand,  the  Ninth 
Circuit  may  consider  this  argument  if,  and  to  the  extent,  it  is  pre-
served.  Pp. 31–32. 

319 Fed. Appx. 645, affirmed and remanded.  

GINSBURG, J.,  delivered  the  opinion  of  the  Court,  in  which  STEVENS, 
KENNEDY, BREYER, and SOTOMAYOR, JJ., joined.  STEVENS, J., and KEN-
NEDY, J., filed concurring opinions.  ALITO, J., filed a dissenting opinion, 
in which ROBERTS, C. J., and SCALIA and THOMAS, JJ., joined.