Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/09pdf/08-1371.pdf
Page Number: 65.0

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

17 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

ment rights.”  408 U. S., at 187.  Here, too, disapproval of
CLS cannot justify Hastings’ actions.2 

III 

The  Court  pays  little  attention  to  Healy  and  instead 
focuses solely on the question whether Hastings’ registra-
tion policy represents a permissible regulation in a limited 
public forum.  While I think that Healy is largely control-
ling, I am content to address the constitutionality of Hast-
ings’  actions  under  our  limited  public  forum  cases,  which 
lead to exactly the same conclusion.

In  this  case,  the  forum  consists  of  the  RSO  program.
Once  a  public  university  opens  a  limited  public  forum,  it
“must  respect  the  lawful  boundaries  it  has  itself  set.” 
Rosenberger  v.  Rector  and  Visitors  of  Univ.  of  Va.,  515 
U. S.  819,  829  (1995).  The  university  “may  not  exclude
speech  where  its  distinction  is  not  ‘reasonable  in  light  of 
the  purpose  served  by  the  forum.’ ”    Ibid.  (quoting  Corne-
lius  v.  NAACP  Legal  Defense  &  Ed.  Fund,  Inc.,  473  U. S. 
788, 806 (1985)).  And the university must maintain strict 
viewpoint  neutrality.  Board  of  Regents  of  Univ.  of  Wis. 
System  v.  Southworth,  529  U. S.  217,  234  (2000);  Rosen-
berger, supra, at 829. 

This requirement of viewpoint neutrality extends to the 
expression of religious viewpoints.  In an unbroken line of 
decisions  analyzing  private  religious  speech  in  limited 
public  forums,  we  have  made  it  perfectly  clear  that 
“[r]eligion is [a] viewpoint from which ideas are conveyed.” 
—————— 

2 The  Court  attempts  to  distinguish  Healy  on  the  ground  that  there
the  college  “explicitly  denied  the  student  group  official  recognition 
because  of  the  group’s  viewpoint.”    Ante,  at  17,  n. 15.    The  same,  how-
ever, is true here.  CLS was denied recognition under the Nondiscrimi-
nation  Policy  because  of  the  viewpoint  that  CLS  sought  to  express
through its membership requirements.  See supra, at 5; infra, at 18–23. 
And  there  is  strong  evidence  that  Hastings  abruptly  shifted  from  the 
Nondiscrimination Policy to the accept-all-comers policy as a pretext for 
viewpoint discrimination.  See infra, at 31–35.