Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/09pdf/08-1371.pdf
Page Number: 84.0

36 

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

views,  ended  the  group’s  affiliation  with  the  national 
organization, and changed the group’s message.  The new 
leadership  would  likely  proclaim  that  the  group  was  “vi-
tal”  but  rectified,  while  CLS,  I  assume,  would  take  the 
view  that  the  old  group  had  suffered  its  “demise.”
Whether  a  change  represents  reform  or  transformation
may depend very much on the eye of the beholder. 

JUSTICE KENNEDY takes a similarly mistaken tack.  He 
contends  that  CLS  “would  have  a  substantial  case  on  the 
merits if it were shown that the all-comers policy was . . .
used  to  infiltrate  the  group  or  challenge  its  leadership  in 
order  to  stifle  its  views,”  ante,  at  4  (concurring  opinion),
but he does not explain on what ground such a claim could
succeed.  The Court holds that the accept-all-comers policy
is  viewpoint  neutral  and  reasonable  in  light  of  the  pur-
poses  of  the  RSO  forum.  How  could  those  characteristics 
be  altered  by  a  change  in  the  membership  of  one  of  the 
forum’s registered groups?  No explanation is apparent. 

In the end, the Court refuses to acknowledge the conse-
quences  of  its  holding.    A  true  accept-all-comers  policy 
permits  small  unpopular  groups  to  be  taken  over  by  stu-
dents  who  wish  to  change  the  views  that  the  group  ex-
presses.  Rules  requiring  that  members  attend  meetings, 
pay  dues,  and  behave  politely,  see  ante,  at  27,  would  not 
eliminate this threat. 

The  possibility  of  such  takeovers,  however,  is  by  no
means  the  most  important  effect  of  the  Court’s  holding.
There are religious groups that cannot in good conscience
agree in their bylaws that they will admit persons who do 
not  share  their  faith,  and  for  these  groups,  the  conse-
quence  of  an  accept-all-comers  policy  is  marginalization.
See Brief for Evangelical Scholars (Officers and 24 Former 
Presidents of the Evangelical Theological Society) et al. as 
Amici Curiae 19 (affirmance in this case “will allow every 
public  college  and  university  in  the  United  States  to  ex-
clude  all  evangelical  Christian  organizations”);  Brief  for