Christian Legal Society Chapter Of The Law University Of California, Hastings College Of Law v. Martinez

130 S.Ct. 2971 (2010)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Through its “Registered Student Organization” (RSO) program, D extends official recognition to student groups. RSOs are eligible to seek financial assistance from D, which subsidizes their events using funds from a mandatory student-activity fee imposed on all students. RSOs may also use Law-School channels to communicate with students: They may place announcements in a weekly Office-of-Student-Services newsletter, advertise events on designated bulletin boards, send e-mails using a Hastings-organization address, and participate in an annual Student Organizations Fair designed to advance recruitment efforts. RSOs may apply for permission to use the Law School's facilities for meetings and office space. RSOs must abide by certain conditions. Only a “non-commercial organization whose membership is limited to Hastings students may become [an RSO].” A prospective RSO must submit its bylaws to D for approval. RSOs must undertake to comply with Hastings' “Policies and Regulations Applying to College Activities, Organizations, and Students.” Hastings interprets its Nondiscrimination Policy, as it relates to the RSO program, to mandate acceptance of all comers: School-approved groups must “allow any student to participate, become a member, or seek leadership positions in the organization, regardless of [her] status or beliefs.” P formally requested an exemption from the Nondiscrimination Policy, but D declined to grant one. P filed suit against various D officers and administrators under § 1983 as a violation of P’s First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to free speech, expressive association, and free exercise of religion. The court granted summary judgment in favor of D; D's all-comers condition on access to a limited public forum was both reasonable and viewpoint neutral, and therefore did not violate P's right to free speech. The Ninth Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.