Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/09pdf/08-1371.pdf
Page Number: 68

20 

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

jected  global  warming.    An  animal  rights  group  was  not 
obligated  to  accept  students  who  supported  the  use  of
animals to test cosmetics.  But CLS was required to admit 
avowed  atheists.    This  was  patent  viewpoint  discrimina-
tion.  “By the very terms of the [Nondiscrimination Policy],
the  University  . . .  select[ed]  for  disfavored  treatment
those  student  [groups]  with  religious  . . .  viewpoints.” 
Rosenberger,  515  U.  S.,  at  831.  It  is  no  wonder  that  the 
Court makes no attempt to defend the constitutionality of
the Nondiscrimination Policy. 

Unlike the Court, JUSTICE STEVENS attempts a defense,
contending that the Nondiscrimination Policy is viewpoint
neutral.  But  his  arguments  are  squarely  contrary  to
established precedent.

JUSTICE  STEVENS  first  argues  that  the  Nondiscrimina-
tion Policy is viewpoint neutral because it “does not regu-
late expression or belief at all” but instead  regulates con-
duct.  See ante, at 2 (concurring opinion).  This Court has 
held,  however,  that  the  particular  conduct  at  issue  here
constitutes  a  form  of  expression  that  is  protected  by  the
First  Amendment.    It  is  now  well  established  that  the 
First Amendment shields the right of a group to engage in
expressive  association  by  limiting  membership  to  persons 
whose  admission  does  not  significantly  interfere  with  the 
group’s  ability  to  convey  its  views.  See  Dale,  supra,  at 
648;  Roberts  v.  United  States  Jaycees,  468  U. S.  609,  623 
(1984); see also New York State Club Assn., Inc. v. City of 
New  York,  487  U. S.  1,  13  (1988)  (acknowledging  that  an
“association might be able to show that it is organized for 
specific expressive purposes and that it will not be able to
advocate  its  desired  viewpoints  nearly  as  effectively  if  it 
cannot  confine  its  membership  to  those  who  share  the
same  sex,  for  example,  or  the  same  religion”);  Widmar, 
supra,  at  268–269  (“[T]he  First  Amendment  rights  of 
speech  and  association  extend  to  the  campuses  of  state 
universities”).    Indeed,  the  opinion  of  the  Court,  which