Hastings College of the Law also known as ‘Hastings’ who are the respondents in this case, recognizes student groups within its schools through its “Registered Student Organization” (RSO) program. This status which is school-approved comes with several benefits including use of the school’s facilities, funds and the Hastings logo amongst others. However, in exchange, the RSO’s are required to abide by some rules, amongst them, the schools Nondiscriminatory policy which like the state law, bans all forms of discrimination including those based on religion and those based on sexual orientation. Thus, the RSO’S must allow all students who come to Hasting to join or participate in any school activity of their choice despite their status and beliefs.
During the Academic year of 2004-2005, the Christian Legal Society (CLS), the petitioner in this case, was formed by an already existing Christian RSO. Its by-laws required that every member must attest to a “Statement of Faith” hence behave in accordance with the prescribed principles which included rules like not engaging in sexual activities before marriage and exclusion from the society of anyone found to be engaging in “homosexual conduct”. Hastings rejected CLS’s request to attain an RSO status because its by-laws did not conform to its openness policy. The CLS then brought this suit arguing that Hastings had infringed on its First and Fourteenth Amendment rights and freedom of association.
ISSUE: Whether an institution which was public, whose conditioned access to a student-organization forum violated the Constitution by complying with an all-comers policy.
It was held that the argument relied on by CLS was not conclusive in itself because it contradicted the joint statement of facts that was presented by both parties at the summary judgment. The CLS argued that the policy’s terms targets only groups organized around religious groups or groups that do not permit certain sexual acts while leaving other groups to be open to any student who shares its ideologies. This contradicted their joint statement of facts. The court also recognized that the parties were bound by their stipulations and could therefore not contradict them afterwards. Thus, the court rejected CLS’s application because they were trying to escape the stipulation and shift the blame on Hastings. This was also the holding in Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin v Southworth 529 U.S.217.
The court also held that the Hastings policy was reasonable and did not violate CLS’s First amendment rights. This was because the policy ensured that the opportunities afforded by the RSO’s were available to all students. The RSO’s are funded by money drawn from mandatory student- activities fees. This ensured that no student could be rejected from any RSO that they wished to join since they had all paid for its activities. It was held in Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Ed. Fund Inc, 473 U.S. 808, that, “A State’s restriction on access to a limited public forum moreover, need not be the most reasonable or the only reasonable limitation.” Thus CLS’s argument that the all-comers policy was unreasonable was wrong taking into account the RSO forum’s function and all surrounding circumstances.
The courts were right in their judgment because the policy does not draw any distinction between groups based on their message or perspective; it requires that all student groups accept allcomers which is a neutral viewpoint.
Cases Cited
Board of Regents of Univ. of Wis. System v. Southworth, 529 U.S. 217.
Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Ed. Fund Inc, 473 U.S. 808.
ACRONYMS
CLS – Christian Legal Society.
RSO – Registered Student Organization.
