Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/09pdf/08-1371.pdf
Page Number: 39.0

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

1 

STEVENS, 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 STEVENS, concurring. 
The Court correctly confines its discussion to the narrow 
issue  presented  by  the  record,  see  ante,  at  8–12,  and  cor-
rectly  upholds  the  all-comers  policy.    I  join  its  opinion
without reservation.  Because the dissent has volunteered 
an  argument  that  the  school’s  general  Nondiscrimination
Policy would be “plainly” unconstitutional if applied to this 
case,  post,  at  18  (opinion  of  ALITO,  J.),  a  brief  response 
is  appropriate. 
In  my  view,  both  policies  are  plainly 
legitimate.

The  Hastings  College  of  Law’s  (Hastings)  Nondiscrimi-
nation  Policy  contains  boilerplate  language  used  by  insti-
tutions  and  workplaces  across  the  country:  It  prohibits
“unlawfu[l]”  discrimination  “on  the  basis  of  race,  color,
religion,  national  origin,  ancestry,  disability,  age,  sex  or
sexual  orientation.”  App.  220.  Petitioner,  the  Hastings
chapter  of  the  Christian  Legal  Society  (CLS),  refused  to 
comply.  As  the  Court  explains,  ante,  at  5–6,  CLS  was 
unwilling  to  admit  members  unless  they  affirmed  their 
belief  in  certain  Christian  doctrines  and  refrained  from 
“participation  in  or  advocacy  of  a  sexually  immoral  life-
style,”  App.  146.    CLS,  in  short,  wanted  to  receive  the 
school’s  formal  recognition—and  the  benefits  that  attend