Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/09pdf/08-1371.pdf
Page Number: 72.0

24 

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

should qualify as a conduct requirement.

If  it  does  not,  then  what  Hastings’  new  policy  must 
mean is that registered groups may impose some, but not 
all,  conduct  requirements.  And  if  that  is  the  case,  it  is 
incumbent  on  Hastings  to  explain  which  conduct  require-
ments  are  acceptable,  which  are  not,  and  why  CLS’s  re-
quirement is not allowed.  Hastings has made no effort to 
provide such an explanation.6 

VI 
I  come  now  to  the  version  of  Hastings’  policy  that  the
Court  has  chosen  to  address.    This  is  not  the  policy  that 
Hastings invoked when CLS was denied registration.  Nor 
is  it  the  policy  that  Hastings  now  proclaims—and  pre-
sumably  implements.    It  is  a  policy  that,  as  far  as  the
record establishes, was in force only from the time when it
was  first  disclosed  by  the  former  dean  in  July  2005  until
Hastings filed its brief in this Court in March 2010.  Why
we should train our attention on this particular policy and
not the other two is a puzzle.  But in any event, it is clear
that the accept-all-comers policy is not reasonable in light 
of  the  purpose  of  the  RSO  forum,  and  it  is  impossible  to
say on the present record that it is viewpoint neutral. 

A 

Once a state university opens a limited forum, it “must 
respect the lawful boundaries it has itself set.”  Rosenber-
ger, 515 U. S., at 829.  Hastings’ regulations on the regis-
tration  of  student  groups  impose  only  two  substantive
limitations:  A  group  seeking  registration  must  have  stu-
dent members and must be non-commercial.  App. to Pet.
for  Cert.  82a–83a,  Hastings  Board  of  Directors,  Policies
and Regulations Applying to College Activities, Organiza-

—————— 

6Nor  does  the  Court  clarify  this  point.  Suggesting  that  any  conduct 
requirement  must  relate  to  “gross  misconduct,”  ante,  at  4,  n.  2,  is  not 
helpful.