christian legal society chapter university california hastings college law aka hastings christian fellowship martinez et argued april decided june respondent hastings college law hastings school within university california system extends official recognition student groups registered student organization rso program several benefits attend status including use school funds facilities channels communication well hastings name logo exchange recognition rsos must abide certain conditions critical rsos must comply school nondiscrimination policy tracks state law barring discrimination number bases including religion sexual orientation hastings interprets policy relates rso program mandate acceptance comers rsos must allow student participate become member seek leadership positions regardless status beliefs beginning academic year leaders existing christian rso formed petitioner christian legal society cls affiliating national christian association charters student chapters law schools throughout country chapters must adopt bylaws inter alia require members officers sign statement faith conduct lives accord prescribed principles among tenets belief sexual activity occur outside marriage man woman cls interprets bylaws exclude affiliation anyone engages unrepentant homosexual conduct holds religious convictions different statement faith hastings rejected cls application rso status ground group bylaws comply hastings policy excluded students based religion sexual orientation cls filed suit injunctive declaratory relief alleging hastings refusal grant group rso status violated first fourteenth amendment rights free speech expressive association free exercise religion summary judgment district ruled hastings held condition access limited public forum reasonable viewpoint neutral therefore violate cls right free speech view hastings impermissibly impair cls right expressive association hastings order cls admit student school proscribe speech hastings merely placed conditions use school facilities funds also rejected cls free exercise argument stating nondiscrimination policy single religious beliefs rather neutral general applicability ninth circuit affirmed ruling condition rso recognition reasonable viewpoint neutral held considers whether public institution conditioning access forum compliance policy violates constitution cls urges review instead nondiscrimination policy written prohibiting discrimination enumerated bases including religion sexual orientation policy written terms cls contends target solely groups organize around religious beliefs disapprove particular sexual behavior leave associations free limit membership persons committed group ideology argument flatly contradicts joint stipulation facts parties submitted stage specified hastings requires rsos allow student participate regardless status beliefs example hastings democratic caucus bar students holding republican political beliefs long recognized parties bound contradict stipulations see board regents univ system southworth therefore rejects cls attempt escape stipulation shift target hastings policy written pp policy reasonable condition access rso forum therefore transgress first amendment limitations pp limited public forum decisions supply appropriate framework assessing cls claims decisions recognize governmental entity regulating property charge may impose restrictions speech reasonable light purposes forum viewpoint neutral rosenberger rector visitors univ cls urges apply claim different line cases decisions rigorously reviewed restrictions associational freedom context public accommodations roberts jaycees cls arguments merge speaks behalf cls reasons colors concept conveyed makes little sense treat claims discrete instead three observations lead analyze cls arguments precedents first considerations led apply less restrictive level scrutiny speech limited public forums compared environments apply equal force expressive association occurring limited public forum speech rights closely linked see intertwined rights arise exactly context anomalous speech restriction survive constitutional review test invalidated impermissible infringement expressive association second strict scrutiny applied settings laws burden expressive association practical effect invalidate defining characteristic limited public forums state authority reserv certain groups rosenberger third case fits comfortably within category cls may exclude person reason forgoes benefits official recognition decisions contrast involved regulations compelled group include unwanted members choice opt see boy scouts america dale application analysis better accounts fact hastings rso program dangling carrot subsidy wielding stick prohibition pp three cases held public universities unconstitutionally singled student groups disfavored treatment points view see healy james widmar vincent rosenberger recently comprehensively rosenberger held university generally may withhold benefits student groups religious outlook opened limited public forum emphasized state must respect lawful boundaries set may exclude speech distinction reasonable light purpose served forum may discriminate speech basis viewpoint ibid pp hastings policy reasonable taking account rso forum function surrounding circumstances cornelius naacp legal defense ed fund pp inquiry shaped educational context arises first amendment rights must analyzed light special characteristics school environment widmar final arbiter whether public university exceeded constitutional constraints however cautioned courts resist substitut ing notions sound educational policy school authorities judges lack expertise experience school administrators board ed hendrick hudson central school westchester cty rowley schools enjoy significant measure authority type officially recognized activities students participate board ed westside community schools dist mergens approaches task mindful hastings decisions character program due decent respect pp justifications hastings asserts support policy reasonable light rso forum purposes first policy ensures leadership educational social opportunities afforded rsos available students rsos eligible financial assistance drawn mandatory fees policy ensures hastings student forced fund group reject member second policy helps hastings police written terms nondiscrimination policy without inquiring rso motivation membership restrictions cls proposal hastings permit exclusion belief forbid discrimination due status impose hastings daunting task trying determine whether student organization cloaked prohibited status exclusion garb third hastings reasonably adheres view policy extent brings together individuals diverse backgrounds beliefs encourages tolerance cooperation learning among students fourth policy incorporates discrimination proscriptions thereby conveying hastings decision decline subsidize conduct disapproved state long public school contravene constitutional limits choice advance goals stands firm footing pp hastings policy creditworthy light substantial alternative channels remain open communication take place perry ed assn perry local educators hastings offered cls access school facilities conduct meetings use chalkboards certain bulletin boards advertise events although cls take advantage methods communication advent electronic media sites lessens importance channels private groups fraternities sororities commonly maintain presence universities without official school affiliation cls similarly situated hosted variety activities year hastings denied recognition number students attending meetings events doubled variety type alternative modes access present short compare favorably limited public forum cases upheld restrictions pp cls arguments policy reasonable unavailing cls contends diversity viewpoints forum groups permitted form around viewpoints argument confuses cls preferred policy constitutional limitation advisability hastings policy control permissibility state restriction access limited public forum moreover need reasonable reasonable limitation cornelius cls contention hastings policy facilitate hostile takeovers rsos student saboteurs bent subverting group mission hypothetical real history prospect hastings cf national endowment arts finley finally cls assertion hastings lacks legitimate interest urging religious groups favor erroneously focuses benefits group must forgo ignoring interests seeks fence hastings caught crossfire group desire exclude students demand equal access may reasonably draw line sand permitting organizations express wish group discriminate membership pp hastings policy viewpoint neutral pp policy draws distinction groups based message perspective requirement student groups accept comers textbook viewpoint neutral pp conceding policy nominally neutral cls asserts systematically impermissibly burdens heavily groups whose viewpoints favor campus mainstream argument fails regulation serves purposes unrelated content expression deemed neutral even incidental effect speakers messages others ward rock racism hastings requirement rsos accept comers satisfied justified without reference content viewpoint regulated speech targets act rejecting group members without reference reasons motivating behavior pp neither lower addressed cls argument hastings selectively enforces policy proper forum air issue first instance remand ninth circuit may consider argument extent preserved pp fed appx affirmed remanded ginsburg delivered opinion stevens kennedy breyer sotomayor joined stevens kennedy filed concurring opinions alito filed dissenting opinion roberts scalia thomas joined christian legal society chapter versity california hastings college law aka hastings christian ship petitioner leo martinez et al writ certiorari appeals ninth circuit june justice ginsburg delivered opinion series decisions emphasized first amendment generally precludes public universities denying student organizations access forums groups viewpoints see rosenberger rector visitors univ widmar vincent healy james case concerns novel question regarding student activities public universities may public law school condition official recognition student group attendant use school funds facilities organization agreement open eligibility membership leadership students view petitioner christian legal society cls policy impairs first amendment rights free speech expressive association free exercise religion prompting pain relinquishing advantages recognition accept members share organization core beliefs religion sexual orientation perspective respondent hastings college law hastings law school cls seeks special dispensation requirement designed reasonable educational purposes underpinning school program accord district appeals reject cls first amendment challenge compliance hastings policy conclude reasonable condition access forum requiring cls common student organizations choose welcoming students forgoing benefits official recognition hold hastings transgress constitutional limitations cls bears emphasis seeks parity organizations preferential exemption hastings policy first amendment shields cls state prohibition organization expressive activity however exclusionary activity may cls enjoys constitutional right state subvention selectivity founded hastings first law school university california system like many institutions higher education hastings encourages students form extracurricular associations contribute hastings community experience app groups offer students opportunities pursue academic social interests outside classroom education help develo leadership skills ibid registered student organization rso program hastings extends official recognition student groups several benefits attend status rsos eligible seek financial assistance law school subsidizes events using funds mandatory fee imposed students rsos may also use channels communicate students may place announcements weekly newsletter advertise events designated bulletin boards send using address participate annual student organizations fair designed advance recruitment efforts addition rsos may apply permission use law school facilities meetings office space finally hastings allows officially recognized groups use name logo exchange benefits rsos must abide certain conditions organization whose membership limited hastings students may become rso app pet cert prospective rso must submit bylaws hastings approval intends use law school name logo must sign license agreement app critical rsos must undertake comply hastings policies regulations applying college activities organizations students law school policy nondiscrimination nondiscrimination policy binds rsos hastings committed policy legally impermissible arbitrary unreasonable discriminatory practices groups including administration faculty student governments hastings student residence facilities programs sponsored hastings governed policy nondiscrimination hasting policy nondiscrimination comply fully applicable law hastings shall discriminate unlawfully basis race color religion national origin ancestry disability age sex sexual orientation nondiscrimination policy covers admission access treatment programs activities hastings interprets nondiscrimination policy relates rso program mandate acceptance comers groups must allow student participate become member seek leadership positions organization regardless status beliefs law schools adopted similar policies see georgetown university law center office student life student organi zations available http internet materials visited june included clerk case file membership registered groups must open students hofstra law school student handbook available http student organizations open hastings adoption nondiscrimination policy events stirring litigation student organization hastings ever sought exemption policy app cls became first student group beginning academic year leaders predecessor christian organization rso hastings decade formed cls affiliating national christian legal society association christian lawyers law students charters student chapters law schools throughout country cls chapters must adopt bylaws inter alia require members officers sign statement faith conduct lives accord prescribed principles app pet cert among tenets belief sexual activity occur outside marriage man woman cls thus interprets bylaws exclude affiliation anyone engages unrepentant homosexual conduct app cls also excludes students hold religious convictions different statement faith september cls submitted hastings application rso status accompanied required documents including set bylaws mandated several days later law school rejected application cls bylaws hastings explained comply nondiscrimination policy cls barred students based religion sexual orientation cls formally requested exemption nondiscrimination policy hastings declined grant one one organizations hastings reiterated cls must open membership students irrespective religious beliefs sexual orientation cls instead chose operate outside rso program hastings stated school pleased provide cls use hastings facilities meetings activities ibid cls also access chalkboards generally available campus bulletin boards announce events words hastings nothing suppress cls endeavors neither lend support refusing alter bylaws cls obtain rso status however operate independently academic year cls held weekly meetings invited hastings students good friday easter sunday church services also hosted beach barbeque thanksgiving dinner campus lecture christian faith legal practice several fellowship dinners banquet informal social activities ibid october cls filed suit various hastings officers administrators complaint alleged hastings refusal grant organization rso status violated cls first fourteenth amendment rights free speech expressive association free exercise religion suit sought injunctive declaratory summary judgment district northern district california ruled favor hastings law school condition access limited public forum held reasonable viewpoint neutral therefore violate cls right free speech app pet cert district view law school impermissibly impair cls right expressive association hastings directly ordering cls admit studen observed ather hastings merely placed conditions use facilities funds ibid hastings denial official recognition added substantial impediment cls ability meet communicate group also rejected cls free exercise clause argument nondiscrimination policy target single religious beliefs noted rather policy neutral general applicability cls may motivated religious beliefs exclude students based religion sexual orientation explained convert reason hastings nondiscrimination policy one appeal ninth circuit affirmed opinion stated full parties stipulate hastings imposes open membership rule student groups groups must accept comers voting members even individuals disagree mission group conditions recognition therefore viewpoint neutral reasonable truth kent sch cir christian legal soc chapter univ cal kane fed appx granted certiorari affirm ninth circuit judgment ii considering merits cls constitutional arguments must resolve preliminary issue cls urges us review nondiscrimination policy written prohibiting discrimination several enumerated bases including religion sexual orientation requirement rsos accept comers written terms nondiscrimination policy cls contends targe solely groups whose beliefs based religion disapprove particular kind sexual behavior leave associations free limit membership leadership individuals committed group ideology brief petitioner internal quotation marks omitted example political group insist leaders support purposes beliefs cls alleges religious group cls assertion runs headlong stipulation facts jointly submitted hastings stage filing parties specified hastings requires registered student organizations allow student participate become member seek leadership positions organization regardless status beliefs thus example hastings democratic caucus bar students holding republican political beliefs becoming members seeking leadership positions organization app joint stipulation emphasis added citations omitted district local rules stipulated facts deemed undisputed civil local rule nd cal see also pet cert material facts case undisputed litigants long recognized entitled case tried upon assumption facts stipulated record established hackfeld entitlement bookend party undertaking bound factual stipulations submits see post alito dissenting agreeing parties must held joint stipulation leading legal reference summarizes factual stipulations binding conclusive facts stated subject subsequent variation parties permitted deny truth facts stated maintain contention contrary agreed statement suggest appeal facts stipulated material fact omitted burden party seeking recover show right facts actually stated stipulations footnotes omitted accordingly refused consider party argument contradicted joint stipulation entered outset th litigation board regents univ system southworth time dissent races away facts cls stipulated see post factual stipulations formal concessions effect withdrawing fact issue dispensing wholly need proof fact thus judicial admission conclusive case broun mccormick evidence ed omitted see also oscanyan arms power act disposition trial upon facts conceded counsel plain power act upon evidence produced light joint stipulation district ninth circuit trained attention constitutionality requirement described parties accord see fed app pet cert reject cls unseemly attempt escape stipulation shift target hastings policy written opinion therefore considers whether conditioning access forum compliance policy violates iii support argument hastings policy treads first amendment rights free speech expressive association cls draws two lines decisions first progression cases employed forum analysis determine governmental entity regulating property charge may place limitations recognizing state right preserve property control use lawfully dedicated cornelius naacp legal defense ed fund internal quotation marks omitted permitted restrictions access limited public forum like rso program key caveat access barrier must reasonable viewpoint neutral rosenberger see also good news club milford central school lamb chapel center moriches union free school perry ed assn perry local educators second evidenced another set decisions rigorously reviewed laws regulations constrain associational freedom context public accommodations subjected restrictions freedom close scrutiny restrictions permitted serve compelling state interests unrelated suppression ideas interests advanced significantly less restrictive means roberts jaycees see also boy scouts america dale freedom association recognized plainly presupposes freedom associate roberts insisting organization embrace unwelcome members therefore concluded directly immediately affects associational rights dale cls us engage line cases independently arguments merge speaks behalf cls reasons colors concept conveyed see brief petitioner expressive association case functional equivalent speech therefore makes little sense treat cls speech association claims discrete see citizens rent fair housing berkeley instead three observations lead us conclude precedents supply appropriate framework assessing cls speech association rights first considerations led us apply less restrictive level scrutiny speech limited public forums compared environments see supra apply equal force expressive association occurring limited public forums noted speech rights closely linked see roberts associational freedom implicit right engage activities protected first intertwined rights arise exactly context anomalous restriction speech survive constitutional review test invalidated impermissible infringement expressive association accord brief state universities state university systems amici curiae result anomalous case cls suggests claim plays part auxiliary speech starring role see brief petitioner second closely related strict scrutiny applied settings laws burden expressive association practical effect invalidate defining characteristic limited public forums state may reserv certain groups rosenberger see also perry ed implicit concept limited public forum state right make distinctions access basis speaker identity cornelius speaker may excluded limited public forum member class speakers whose especial benefit forum example sharpens tip point schools including hastings see app pet cert ordinarily without controversy limit official recognition organizations comprising students even groups wish associate nonstudents see volokh freedom expressive association government subsidies stan rev ground rules must govern speech association challenges context lest strict scrutiny trump public university ability confin speech forum limited legitimate purposes created rosenberger see also healy associational activities need tolerated infringe reasonable campus third case fits comfortably within category cls seeking effectively state subsidy faces indirect pressure modify membership policies cls may exclude person reason forgoes benefits official precedents cls relies contrast involved regulations compelled group include unwanted members choice opt see dale regulation forc ed boy scouts accept members desire internal quotation marks omitted roberts clearer example intrusion internal structure affairs association forced inclusion unwelcome participants diverse contexts decisions distinguished policies require action withhold benefits see grove city college bell bob jones univ application analysis better accounts fact hastings rso program dangling carrot subsidy wielding stick prohibition cf norwood harrison constitution may compel toleration private discrimination circumstances mean requires state support sum persuaded precedents adequately respect cls speech rights fairly balance rights hastings interests property owner educational institution turn merits instant dispute therefore decisions guide earlier pointed supra write blank slate three times considered clashes public universities student groups seeking official recognition attendant benefits first healy state college denied school affiliation student group wished form local chapter students democratic society sds characterizing sds mission violent disruptive finding organization philosophy repugnant college completely banned sds chapter campus effort sever channels communication students group university officials went far disband meeting sds members campus coffee shop college noted require group seeking official recognition affirm advance willingness adhere reasonable campus law including reasonable standards respecting conduct public educational institution exceeds constitutional bounds held restrict speech association simply finds views expressed group abhorrent later relied healy widmar case public university effort avoid state support religion closed facilities registered student group sought use university space religious worship discussion university mission education observed decisions never denied university authority impose reasonable regulations compatible mission upon use campus facilities university singled religious organizations disadvantageous treatment subjected university regulation strict scrutiny school interest maintaining strict separation church state held sufficiently compelling justify viewpoint discrimination religious speech internal quotation marks omitted recently comprehensively rosenberger reiterated university generally may withhold benefits student groups religious outlook officially recognized student group rosenberger denied funding distribute newspaper publication discussed issues christian perspective select ing disfavored treatment student journalistic efforts religious editorial viewpoints held university engaged viewpoint discrimination presumed impermissible directed speech otherwise within forum limitations three cases ruled student groups unconstitutionally singled points view opened limited public forum emphasized state must respect lawful boundaries set constitutional constraints boundaries state may set bear repetition state may exclude speech distinction reasonable light purpose served forum may discriminate speech basis viewpoint ibid internal quotation marks omitted first consider whether hastings policy reasonable taking account rso forum function surrounding circumstances cornelius inquiry shaped educational context arises first amendment rights observed must analyzed light special characteristics school environment widmar internal quotation marks omitted final arbiter question whether public university exceeded constitutional constraints owe deference universities consider question cf pell procunier courts course abdicate constitutional responsibility delineate protect fundamental cognizant judges lack expertise experience school administrators however cautioned courts various contexts resist substitut ing notions sound educational policy school authorities review board ed hendrick hudson central school westchester cty rowley see also hazelwood school dist kuhlmeier noting view education nation youth primarily responsibility parents teachers state local school officials federal judges healy long recognized need affirming comprehensive authority school officials consistent fundamental constitutional safeguards prescribe control conduct schools quoting tinker des moines independent community school college commission concomitant license choose among pedagogical approaches confined classroom extracurricular programs today essential parts educational process see board ed independent school dist pottawatomie cty earls involvement student groups significant contributor breadth quality educational experience internal quotation marks omitted schools emphasized enjoy significant measure authority type officially recognized activities students participate board ed westside community schools dist mergens therefore approach task special caution healy mindful hastings decisions character program due decent appropriate regard school administrators judgment review justifications hastings offers defense first policy ensures leadership educational social opportunities afforded rsos available students brief hastings see brief american civil liberties union et al amici curiae hastings allow professors host classes open students certain status belief law school may decide reasonably view educational experience best promoted participants forum must provide equal access students brief hastings rsos count significant eligible financial assistance drawn mandatory fees see supra policy ensures hastings student forced fund group reject second requirement helps hastings police written terms nondiscrimination policy without inquiring rso motivation membership restrictions bring rso program within cls view constitution limits cls proposes hastings permit exclusion belief forbid discrimination due status see tr oral arg proposal impose hastings daunting labor law school go determining whether student organization cloaked prohibited status exclusion garb hypothetical club barred female student running presidency example law school tell whether group rejected bid sex seeking lead club manifested lack belief fundamental philosophy case instructive regard cls contends exclude individuals sexual orientation rather basis conjunction conduct belief conduct wrong brief petitioner emphasis deleted decisions declined distinguish status conduct context see lawrence texas homosexual conduct made criminal law state declaration invitation subject homosexual persons discrimination emphasis added concurring judgment true law applies conduct conduct targeted law conduct closely correlated homosexual circumstances law targeted conduct instead directed toward gay persons class cf bray alexandria women health clinic tax wearing yarmulkes tax see also brief lambda legal defense education fund et al amici curiae third law school reasonably adheres view policy extent brings together individuals diverse backgrounds beliefs encourages tolerance cooperation learning among students app policy sometimes produces discord hastings rationally rank among goals development skills toleration readiness find common ground fourth hastings policy incorporates fact subsumes proscriptions discrimination conveys law school decision decline subsidize public monies benefits conduct people california disapprove brief hastings citing cal educ code prohibiting discrimination various bases state law course may command public universities take action impermissible first amendment long public university contravene constitutional limits choice advance goals school educational endeavors stands firm footing sum several justifications hastings asserts support requirement surely reasonable light rso forum law school policy creditworthy view substantial alternative channels remain open communication take place perry ed restrictions access limited public forum viewpoint discriminatory ability group exist outside forum cure constitutional shortcoming access barriers viewpoint neutral decisions counted significant available avenues group exercise first amendment rights lessen burden created barriers see ibid cornelius greer spock pell case hastings offered cls access school facilities conduct meetings use chalkboards generally available bulletin boards advertise events app although cls take advantage methods communication see supra advent electronic media sites reduces importance channels see app cls maintained yahoo message group disseminate information students christian legal society walker wood dissenting universities colleges students communicate email websites hosts like myspace cls website student school access google easily found see also brief associated students university california hastings college law amicus curiae describing host ways cls communicate hastings students outside official channels private groups fraternities sororities social clubs secret societies commonly maintain presence universities without official school based record us cls similarly situated hosted variety activities year hastings denied recognition number students attending meetings events doubled app variety type alternative modes access present short compare favorably limited public forum cases upheld restrictions access perry ed beyond dissenter license note see supra constantly maintain nonrecognition student organization equivalent prohibiting members speaking cls nevertheless deems hastings policy frankly absurd brief petitioner diversity viewpoints forum asserts groups permitted form around viewpoints accord post alito dissenting catchphrase confuses cls preferred policy constitutional limitation advisability hastings policy control permissibility see wood strickland instead repeatedly stressed state restriction access limited public forum need reasonable reasonable limitation cornelius cls also assails reasonableness policy light rso forum function forecasting policy facilitate hostile takeovers organizations must open arms cls contends saboteurs infiltrate groups subvert mission message supposition strikes us hypothetical real cls points history prospect hastings cf national endowment arts finley reluctant invalidate legislation basis hypothetical application situations internal quotation marks omitted students tend presumably endeavor en masse join let alone seek leadership positions groups pursuing missions wholly odds personal beliefs rogue student intent sabotaging organization objectives nevertheless attempted takeover members group likely elect officer rsos moreover harmony policy may condition eligibility membership leadership attendance payment dues neutral requirements designed ensure students join commitment group vitality demise see supra several rsos hastings limit membership rolls officer slates way see app members must ay dues timely basis attend meetings regularly members must complete application pay dues ny active member misses semester regularly scheduled meetings shall dropped rolls app pet cert hastings students held membership organization minimum one semester shall eligible officer hastings furthermore reasonably expect law students disruptive behavior cls hypothesizes build expectation educational approach reasonable policy need anticipate preemptively close every opportunity avoidance manipulation students begin exploit policy hijacking organizations distort destroy missions hastings presumably revisit revise policy see tr oral arg counsel hastings brief hastings finally cls asserts dissent repeats post law school lacks legitimate interest let alone one reasonably related rso forum purposes urging religious groups favor purposes religious activities brief petitioner cls analytical error lies focusing benefits must forgo ignoring interests seeks fence exclusion two sides hastings caught crossfire group desire exclude students demand equal access may reasonably draw line sand permitting organizations express wish group discriminate next consider whether hastings policy viewpoint neutral although aspect analysis constitutional sticking point prior decisions earlier recounted supra need dwell hard imagine policy one requiring student groups accept comers contrast healy widmar rosenberger universities singled organizations disfavored treatment points view hastings requirement draws distinction groups based message perspective condition access rso status short textbook viewpoint conceding hastings policy nominally neutral cls attacks regulation pointing effect policy vulnerable constitutional assault cls contends systematically predictably burdens heavily groups whose viewpoints favor campus mainstream brief petitioner cf post alito dissenting charging hastings policy favors political ly correc student expression argument stumbles first step regulation serves purposes unrelated content expression deemed neutral even incidental effect speakers messages others ward rock racism see also madsen women health center fact injunction covered people particular viewpoint render injunction content viewpoint even regulation differential impact groups wishing enforce exclusionary membership policies state target conduct basis expressive content acts shielded regulation merely express discriminatory idea philosophy paul see also roberts state nondiscrimination law distinguish prohibited permitted activity basis viewpoint board directors rotary rotary club duarte hastings requirement student groups accept comers satisfied justified without reference content viewpoint regulated speech ward internal quotation marks emphasis omitted law school policy aims act rejecting group members without reference reasons motivating behavior hastings desire redress th perceived harms exclusionary membership policies provides adequate explanation condition mere disagreement student group beliefs biases wisconsin mitchell cls conduct christian perspective hastings vantage point stands group rso status end hastings observes cls simply confusing objections nondiscrimination laws entitled voice viewpoint discrimination brief hastings finding hastings condition rso status reasonable viewpoint neutral reject cls iv reply brief cls contends peculiarity incoherence suspect history policy point pretext reply brief neither district ninth circuit addressed argument hastings selectively enforces policy proper forum air issue first remand ninth circuit may consider cls pretext argument extent foregoing reasons affirm appeals ruling policy constitutional remand case proceedings consistent opinion ordered christian legal society chapter university california hastings college law aka hastings christian fellowship petitioner leo martinez et al writ certiorari appeals ninth circuit june justice stevens concurring correctly confines discussion narrow issue presented record see ante correctly upholds policy join opinion without reservation dissent volunteered argument school general nondiscrimination policy plainly unconstitutional applied case post opinion alito brief response appropriate view policies plainly legitimate hastings college law hastings nondiscrimination policy contains boilerplate language used institutions workplaces across country prohibits unlawfu discrimination basis race color religion national origin ancestry disability age sex sexual orientation app petitioner hastings chapter christian legal society cls refused comply explains ante cls unwilling admit members unless affirmed belief certain christian doctrines refrained participation advocacy sexually immoral lifestyle app cls short wanted receive school formal recognition benefits attend formal recognition continuing exclude gay students well seems students advocate gay rights dissent view refusing grant cls exemption nondiscrimination policy hastings violated cls rights proscribing unlawful discrimination basis religion policy discriminates unlawfully basis religion numerous reasons counterintuitive theory unsound although first amendment may protect cls discriminatory practices campus require public university validate support written nondiscrimination policy content viewpoint neutral reflect judgment school officials substance student group speech exclude groups basis convictions indeed regulate expression belief policy directed organization activities rather philosophy healy james hold religious beliefs singled post alito dissenting engage discriminatory conduct based someone else religious status belief singled regardless whether product secular spiritual feeling hateful benign motives acts religious discrimination equally covered discriminator beliefs simply irrelevant moreover evidence policy adopted reason related particular views religious individuals groups might much less desire suppress distort views policy religion clause plainly meant promote undermine religious freedom sure policy may end greater consequence religious groups whether extent far clear ex ante inasmuch likely secular counterparts wish exclude students particular faiths likewise evidence policy intended cause harm religious groups practice caused significant harm operations basic tenet first amendment law disparate impact constitute viewpoint dissent thus given reason skeptical basic design function rationale nondiscrimination policy policy reflect judgment discrimination school officials organizations basis certain factors race religion less tolerable discrimination basis factors approach may may wisest choice context registered student organization rso program least reasonable choice academic administrators routinely employ antidiscrimination rules promote tolerance understanding respect safeguard students invidious forms discrimination including sexual orientation applied rso context values turn advance numerous pedagogical objectives see post kennedy concurring critical evaluating cls challenge nondiscrimination policy keep mind rso program limited forum boundaries may delimited proprietor religious association secular association operates wholly public setting must allowed broad freedom control membership message even decisions cause offense outsiders profound constitutional problems arise state california tried demand christian groups admit members believe jesus merely human post alito dissenting cls chapter brought lawsuit want christian group aspires recognized student organization hastings college law legislature state actor demanded anyone anything outside confines discrete voluntary academic program although may case university students campus world post internal quotation marks omitted follow campus equated public square campus fact world apart public square numerous respects religious organizations well organizations must abide certain norms conduct enter academic community public universities serve distinctive role modern democratic society like specialized government entities must make countless decisions allocate resources pursuit role decisions controversial many differential effects across populations virtually entail value judgments kind general matter courts respect universities judgments let manage affairs rso forum different open commons hastings happens maintain mechanism hastings confers certain benefits pursues certain aspects educational mission exercised discretion establish rso program university must treat participants evenhandedly university need remain neutral indeed remain neutral determining goals program serve rules best suited facilitate goals legal questions policy questions university make given group refuses comply rules rso sponsor need admit group cost undermining program values reflected therein many levels university administrator greater interest content student activities police chief content soapbox oration widmar vincent stevens concurring judgment case petitioner excludes students sign statement faith engage unrepentant homosexual conduct app expressive association argument presses however hardly limited facts groups may exclude mistreat jews blacks women share contempt jews blacks women free society must tolerate groups need subsidize give official imprimatur grant equal access law school facilities christian legal society chapter university california hastings college law aka hastings christian fellowship petitioner leo martinez et al writ certiorari appeals ninth circuit june justice kennedy concurring effective limited forum often exclude speakers based affiliation student versus nonstudent based content speech interests expertise art professor chosen speaker conference public transit government exclude limited forum however judgments may impermissible instance otherwise qualified relevant speaker may excluded hostility views beliefs see healy james rosenberger rector visitors univ essential purpose limited forum facilitate expression differing views context student publications forum limited confined first groups second publications forum created long tradition using newspapers publications express differing views also honored tradition university setting stimulates free exchange ideas see university setting state acts background tradition thought experiment center intellectual philosophic tradition considerations supported conclusion first amendment limited forum publications permit exclusion paper reason devoted expressing religious views rosenberger distinguishable instant case various respects least school policy question content based either formulation evident purpose shown otherwise case likely different outcome policy applies equally groups views given stipulation parties basis allegation design purpose rule subterfuge discriminate based viewpoint objection might policy even designed intended fact makes difficult certain groups express views manner essential message group limit membership agree full aims purposes may effective delivering message furthering expressive objectives recognized interest protected governmental interference regulation see boy scouts america dale allowing students form groups around shared identities school creates room personal development see board regents univ system southworth university whole justification student activity program springs initiative students alone give purpose content course extracurricular endeavors instant case however membership qualification enforced contradict legitimate purpose created limited forum first place many educational institutions including respondent hastings college law recognized process learning occurs formally classroom setting informally outside see students may shaped profoundly peers teachers extracurricular activities hastings registered student organization program facilitate interactions students enabling explore new points view develop interests talents nurture growing sense self see board ed independent school dist pottawatomie cty earls participation extracurricular activities significant contributor breadth quality educational hasting program designed allow students interact colleagues across broad seemingly unlimited range ideas views activities see regents univ cal bakke opinion powell great deal learning occurs interactions among students wide variety interests talents perspectives able directly indirectly learn differences stimulate one another reexamine even deeply held assumptions world alteration original internal quotation marks omitted law students come many backgrounds three years meet develop skills participating community teaches create arguments convincing rational respectful manner express doubt disagreement professional way law school furthers objectives allowing broad diversity registered student organizations objectives may better achieved students act cooperatively learn teach interactions social intellectual contexts vibrant dialogue possible students wall opposing points view school objectives thus might well served condition membership participation group students required avow particular personal beliefs disclose private behavior students whose views minority school likely fare worse regime indeed sorts requirements become prevalent might undermine principle university community law school community specifically speech deemed persuasive based substance identity speaker era loyalty oaths behind us school quite properly may conclude allowing oath requirement outside conduct requirement divisive student relations inconsistent basic concept view validity tested free open discussion school policy therefore represents permissible effort preserve value forum addition circumstance already noted demonstrated school adopted enforced policy intent purpose discriminating disadvantaging group account views petitioner also substantial case merits shown policy either designed used infiltrate group challenge leadership order stifle views shown likely matter group dynamics setting declare school policy void without facts showing particular case purpose effect policy stifle speech make ineffective present case different one us observations offered support analysis set forth opinion join christian legal society chapter university california hastings college law aka hastings christian fellowship petitioner leo martinez et al writ certiorari appeals ninth circuit june justice alito chief justice justice scalia justice thomas join dissenting proudest boast free speech jurisprudence protect freedom express thought hate schwimmer holmes dissenting today decision rests different principle freedom expression offends prevailing standards political correctness country institutions higher learning hastings college law state institution permits student organizations register law school severely burdens speech unregistered groups hastings currently registered groups history denied registration exactly one christian legal society cls cls claims hastings refused register group law school administration disapproves group viewpoint thus violated group free speech rights rejecting argument finds hastings policy years registered organizations must admit student wishes join deferring broadly law school judgment permissible limits student debate concludes policy ante consistent hastings proclaimed policy fostering diversity viewpoints among registered student groups treatment case deeply disappointing address constitutionality different policy hastings invoked denied cls application registration address constitutionality policy hastings purports follow ignores strong evidence policy viewpoint neutral announced pretext justify viewpoint discrimination brushing aside inconvenient precedent arms public educational institutions handy weapon suppressing speech unpopular groups groups hastings candidly puts institutions wish lend name brief respondent hastings college law see also provides misleading portrayal case related hastings past years required student group seeking registration admit student wishes join ante effects hastings refusal register cls questionable importance see ante case cls desire obtain state subsidy ante begin correcting picture bases analysis proposition relevant hastings policy policy frees difficult task defending constitutionality either policy hastings actually repeatedly invoked denied registration school written nondiscrimination policy policy hastings belatedly unveiled filed brief overwhelming evidence however shows hastings denied cls application pursuant nondiscrimination policy policy nowhere found mentioned former dean deposition taken well case began events gave rise litigation began small group hastings students sought register hastings chapter cls national organization christian lawyers law students cls members must sign statement faith affirming belief fundamental christian doctrines including belief bible inspired word god app early national organization adopted resolution stating view clear dictates scripture unrepentant participation advocacy sexually immoral lifestyle inconsistent affirmation statement faith consequently may regarded cls disqualifying individual cls membership resolution made clear sexually immoral lifestyle cls view includes engaging acts sexual conduct outside god design marriage one man one woman ibid shortly resolution passed hastings chapter cls applied register law school hastings sponsors active program registered student organizations rsos pursuant law school avowed responsibility ensure opportunity expression variety viewpoints promote highest standards freedom expression app pet cert school year hastings registered groups including political groups hastings democratic caucus hastings republicans religious groups hastings jewish law students association hastings association muslim law students groups promote social causes groups groups organized around racial ethnic identity black law students association korean american law society la raza law students association middle eastern law students association groups focus gender sexuality clara foltz feminist association students raising consciousness hastings see app brief petitioner surprisingly many registered groups dedicated expressing message example silenced right group taught human life moment conception natural death sacred inherent dignity law students choice aimed defend expand reproductive rights american constitution society sought counter narrow conservative vision american law uc hastings student animal defense fund aimed protecting lives advancing interests animals legal system groups granted registration entitled meet university grounds access multiple channels communicating students faculty including posting messages designated bulletin boards sending mass student body distributing material student information center participating annual student organizations fair app pet cert may also apply limited travel funds appear total per year app less per registered group funds available rsos come annual student activity fee every student must pay see app pet cert cls applied registration judy hansen chapman director hastings office student services sent officer chapter informing cls bylaws appear compliant hastings nondiscrimination policy app written policy provides pertinent part university california hastings college law shall discriminate unlawfully basis race color religion national origin ancestry disability age sex sexual orientation far record reflects chapman made mention policy days later three officers chapter met chapman reiterated cls bylaws comply religion sexual orientation provisions nondiscrimination policy need amended order cls become registered student organization week later hastings sent cls letter effect occasions appears word said policy cls refused change membership requirements hastings denied request registration thus making cls student group whose application registration ever rejected brief opposition october cls brought action law school dean school officials claiming among things law school enacting enforcing nondiscrimination policy violated cls first amendment right freedom speech app may hastings filed answer cls first amended complaint made admission significant present purposes complaint cls alleged nondiscrimination policy discriminates religious groups prohibits groups selecting officers members dedicated particular set religious ideals beliefs permits political social cultural student organizations select officers members dedicated organization ideals beliefs response hastings admitted nondiscrimination policy permits political social cultural student organizations select officers members dedicated particular set ideals beliefs hastings interprets nondiscrimination policy relates rso program mandate acceptance comers ante admission hastings answer shows hastings adopted interpretation answer filed within months however hastings position changed july mary kay kane dean law school deposed stated view order registered student organization allow students members full participants want app declaration filed october chapman provided developed explanation stating hastings interprets nondiscrimination policy requiring student organizations wishing register hastings allow hastings student become member seek leadership position organization hastings claims policy existed since points evidence policy ever put writing brought attention members law school community prior dean deposition indeed hastings adduced evidence policy existence date dean kane chapman stated well litigation begun hastings policy neither hastings official ever stated deposition affidavit declaration policy took effect hastings effort portray policy merely interpretation nondiscrimination policy runs obvious difficulties first two policies simply nondiscrimination policy proscribes discrimination limited number specified grounds policy outlaws selectivity second nondiscrimination policy applies everything hastings law school follow policy activities admitting students hiring faculty effort circumvent problem writes hastings interprets nondiscrimination policy relates rso program mandate acceptance comers ante emphasis added puts hastings implausible position maintaining nondiscrimination policy means one thing applied rso program something quite different applied hastings activities nondiscrimination policy terms applies fully components law school including administration faculty app third record replete evidence least dean kane unveiled policy july hastings routinely registered student groups bylaws limiting membership leadership positions agreed groups viewpoints example bylaws hastings democratic caucus provided student hastings may become member hdc long exhibit consistent disregard lack respect objective organization stated article section app pet cert emphasis added constitution association trial lawyers america hastings provided every member must adhere objectives student chapter well mission atla student become member vietnamese american law society long student exhibit consistent disregard lack respect objective organization centers celebrat ion vietnamese culture silenced right limited voting membership students committed group mission spread ing message la raza limited voting membership students raza background app since hastings requires student group applying registration submit copy bylaws see hastings claim unaware provisions noted cls denied registration precisely chapman reviewed bylaws found unacceptable told cls pointed discrepancies litigation hastings took action ensure student groups fact complying law school newly disclosed policy example hastings asked la raza revise bylaws allow students become voting members app pet cert see also brief state michigan et al amici curiae relating anecdotally hastings recently notified hastings democrats maintain club standing student organization must open membership students regardless party affiliation belated remedial efforts suggest anything hastings policy litigation well way finally hastings filed brief policy already evolved policy prohibiting certain specified forms discrimination policy underwent yet another transformation hastings claims really policy policy hastings current policy told foreclose neutral generally applicable membership requirements unrelated beliefs brief respondent hastings college law hastings brief goes note seeming approval registered groups imposed even conduct requirements ibid hastings however told us conduct requirements allowed although presumably requirements regarding sexual conduct fall latter category case district took care address nondiscrimination policy policy see app pet cert appeal however panel ninth circuit like today totally ignored nondiscrimination policy cls argument ninth circuit centered nondiscrimination policy cls argued strenuously district prior former dean deposition numerous groups permitted restrict membership students shared groups nevertheless ninth circuit disposed cls appeal opinion solely addressed policy christian legal soc chapter univ cal kane fed appx like majority ninth circuit relied following joint stipulation parties filed december well dean kane deposition hastings requires registered student organizations allow student participate become member seek leadership positions organization regardless status beliefs app citing binding effect stipulations majority sternly rejects terms cls unseemly attempt escape stipulation shift target nondiscrimination policy ante agree parties must held joint stipulation terms stipulation respected admitted joint stipulation filed december hastings policy cls stipulate application denied year earlier pursuant policy contrary joint stipulation notes reason repeatedly given hasting time cls bylaws comply nondiscrimination policy see app indeed parties even stipulate policy existed fall addition hastings attempting walk away stipulation disclosing real policy policy majority insistence binding effect stipulations contrasts sharply failure recognize binding effect party admissions answer see american title insurance lacelaw factual assertions pleadings pretrial orders unless amended considered judicial admissions conclusively binding party made bakersfield westar ambulance community first bank quoting lacelaw supra noted hastings admitted answer filed prior former dean deposition least time law school follow policy instead allowed political social cultural student organizations select officers members dedicated particular set ideals beliefs app also distorts record respect effect cls hastings decision deny registration quotes letter written hastings general counsel stated hastings pleased provide cls use hastings facilities meetings activities ante quoting app later opinion reiterates hastings offered cls access school facilities conduct meetings ante majority mention offer subject important qualifications hastings attorney put district hastings told cls allows community groups degree use facilities sometimes pay basis understand available priority given registered organizations offered app also fails mention happened cls attempted take advantage hastings offer august local cls president sent chapman requesting permission set advice table campus patio august members cls speak students beginning fall semester request merely set table patio hardly interfered use law school premises cost school money although request labeled time sensitive chapman respond dates question passed advised student inquiries made cls attorney september cls tried counsel cls sought reserve room campus guest speaker scheduled appear specified date noting chapman tardy response prior occasion attorney asked receive response scheduled date answer given date passed statements majority opinion make seem denial registration hurt cls notes cls able hold meetings events ante lthough cls take advantage methods communication advent electronic media sites reduces importance channels ante beginning school year hastings cls group seven members app pet cert suggestion group flourished since one cls principal claims subjected discrimination based viewpoint majority emphasis cls ability endure discrimination using private facilities means communication quite amazing customarily brush aside claim unlawful discrimination observation effects discrimination really bad never taken view little viewpoint discrimination acceptable taken approach discrimination cases finally must comment majority emphasis funding according majority cls seeking effectively state subsidy ante question presented case centers use school funds ante fact funding plays small role case cls sought denied permission set table law school patio virtually cost free every activity regarded matter funding first amendment rights students public universities mercy administration cls notes university students campus world right meet campus use campus channels communication least important university students right gather town square use local communication forums citizen reply brief petitioner ii appreciate far strayed instructive compare case healy james first amendment precedent involving public college refusal recognize student group group healy local chapter students democratic society sds students applied recognition chapter asked college committee whether issues violence chapters answer dependent upon issue similarly refused provide definitive answer asked whether willing use means possible achieve aims president college refused allow group recognized concluding philosophy sds antithetical school policies doubtful local chapter independent national organization aims included violence effects nonrecognition healy largely present sds denied use campus facilities well access customary means used communication among members college community lower federal courts held first amendment rights sds chapter violated case reached college much like today majority sought minimize effects nonrecognition arguing sds members still may meet group campus still may distribute written material campus still may meet together informally campus individuals took different view held denial recognition substantially burdened students right freedom association observing primary impediment free association flowing nonrecognition denial use campus facilities meetings appropriate purposes continued petitioners associational interests also circumscribed denial use campus bulletin boards school newspaper organization remain viable entity campus community new students enter regular basis must possess means communicating students moreover organization ability participate intellectual give take campus debate pursue stated purposes limited denial access customary media communicating administration faculty members students impediments viewed insubstantial striking burdens borne cls cls prevented using campus facilities unless future time hastings chooses provide timely response cls request allow group favor perhaps exchange fee set table patio use room otherwise unoccupied cls like sds healy cut customary media communicating administration faculty members students also telling healy unlike today majority refused defer college president judgment regarding compatibility sound educational policy free speech rights deference arguments majority accepts made defense college president decision deny recognition healy respondents case emphasized college president courts responsibility administering institution courts allow discretion determining actions compatible educational objectives brief respondents healy james pp supporting amicus contended college officials must allowed broad discretion formulating implementing policies brief board trustees california state colleges another argued universities permitted impose restrictions speech tolerated elsewhere brief american association presidents independent colleges universities healy none unlike today healy emphatically rejected proposition first amendment protections apply less force college campuses community large one key question another whether local sds chapter independent national organization whether group posed substantial threat material disruption whether students responses committee questions violence disruption signified willingness engage activities drew conclusions differed college president healy true principle comes interpretation application right free speech exercise independent judgment defer congress matters see sable communications fcc reason bow university administrators end see two possible distinctions healy present case first healy involve funding noted funding plays small part case healy otherwise prevent hastings refusing register cls see good reason potential availability funding enable hastings deny rights go registration leaves one way distinguishing healy identity student group healy warned college president views regarding philosophy sds justify denial first amendment rights disapproval cls justify hastings iii pays little attention healy instead focuses solely question whether hastings registration policy represents permissible regulation limited public forum think healy largely controlling content address constitutionality hastings actions limited public forum cases lead exactly conclusion case forum consists rso program public university opens limited public forum must respect lawful boundaries set rosenberger rector visitors univ university may exclude speech distinction light purpose served forum ibid quoting cornelius naacp legal defense ed fund university must maintain strict viewpoint neutrality board regents univ system southworth rosenberger supra requirement viewpoint neutrality extends expression religious viewpoints unbroken line decisions analyzing private religious speech limited public forums made perfectly clear eligion viewpoint ideas conveyed good news club milford central school see rosenberger supra lamb chapel center moriches union free school widmar vincent applied analysis cases student speech restricted speaker religious viewpoint consistently concluded restrictions constitute viewpoint discrimination rosenberger supra widmar supra see also good news club supra lamb chapel supra also stressed rules applicable limited public forum particularly important university setting state acts background tradition thought experiment center intellectual philosophic tradition rosenberger supra iv analyzed framework hastings refusal register cls pursuant nondiscrimination policy plainly previously noted hastings refused register cls claimed cls bylaws impermissibly discriminated basis religion sexual orientation interpreted hastings applied cls grounds constituted viewpoint discrimination religion first amendment protects right right associate purpose speaking rumsfeld forum academic institutional rights quoting boy scouts america dale recognized forced inclusion unwanted person group infringes group freedom expressive association presence person affects significant way group ability advocate public private viewpoints dale supra one important exception hastings nondiscrimination policy respected right hastings stated answer nondiscrimination policy permit ted political social cultural student organizations select officers members dedicated particular set ideals beliefs app policy singled one category expressive associations disfavored treatment groups formed express religious message religious groups required admit students share views environmentalist group required admit students rejected global warming animal rights group obligated accept students supported use animals test cosmetics cls required admit avowed atheists patent viewpoint discrimination terms nondiscrimination policy university select ed disfavored treatment student groups religious viewpoints rosenberger wonder makes attempt defend constitutionality nondiscrimination policy unlike justice stevens attempts defense contending nondiscrimination policy viewpoint neutral arguments squarely contrary established precedent justice stevens first argues nondiscrimination policy viewpoint neutral regulate expression belief instead regulates conduct see ante concurring opinion held however particular conduct issue constitutes form expression protected first amendment well established first amendment shields right group engage expressive association limiting membership persons whose admission significantly interfere group ability convey views see dale supra roberts jaycees see also new york state club city new york acknowledging association might able show organized specific expressive purposes able advocate desired viewpoints nearly effectively confine membership share sex example religion widmar supra first amendment rights speech association extend campuses state universities indeed opinion justice stevens joins acknowledges rule see ante justice stevens also maintains nondiscrimination policy viewpoint neutral prohibits groups religious secular engaging religious speech see ante argument also contrary established law rosenberger dissent justice stevens joined made exactly argument see opinion souter disagreed holding policy treated secular speech favorably religious speech discriminated basis reaffirmed holding good news club nondiscrimination policy permitted membership requirements expressed secular viewpoint see app example hastings democratic caucus hastings republicans allowed exclude members disagreed parties platforms religious groups permitted express religious viewpoint limiting membership students shared religious viewpoints established precedent viewpoint bears emphasis permitting religious groups limit membership share groups beliefs effect allowing groups discriminate basis religion mean example fraternities sororities exclude students basis cases recognized right expressive association permits group exclude applicant membership admission person affec significant way group ability advocate public private viewpoints dale groups engage expressive association right similarly groups dedicated expressing viewpoint secular topic example political ideological viewpoint basis limiting membership based religion presence members diverse religious beliefs effect group ability express views religious groups situation different point put well coalition muslim christian jewish sikh groups course strong interest prohibiting religious discrimination religion irrelevant fundamentally confused apply rule religious discrimination religious association brief american islamic congress et al amici curiae sexual orientation hastings nondiscrimination policy interpreted law school also discriminated basis viewpoint regarding sexual morality cls particular viewpoint subject namely sexual conduct outside marriage man woman wrongful hastings allow cls express viewpoint limiting membership persons willing express sincere agreement cls views contrast nothing nondiscrimination policy prohibited group expressing contrary viewpoint limiting membership persons willing endorse group beliefs free love club require members affirm reject traditional view sexual morality cls adheres hard see viewed anything viewpoint discrimination hastings current policy announced first time brief filed fares better policy law school invoked cls application denied according hastings brief new policy contrary position taken hastings officials earlier point litigation really require student group accept comers hastings explains policy allows neutral generally applicable membership requirements unrelated beliefs brief respondent hastings college law examples permissible membership requirements hastings mentions academic standing writing ability dues attendance even conduct requirements ibid emphasis added seems doubtful hastings new policy permits registered groups condition membership eligibility whatever conduct requirements may wish impose school current policy hard see cls may registered cls demands members foreswear unrepentant participation advocacy sexually immoral lifestyle app qualify conduct requirement hastings new policy must mean registered groups may impose conduct requirements case incumbent hastings explain conduct requirements acceptable cls requirement allowed hastings made effort provide vi come version hastings policy chosen address policy hastings invoked cls denied registration policy hastings proclaims presumably implements policy far record establishes force time first disclosed former dean july hastings filed brief march train attention particular policy two puzzle event clear policy reasonable light purpose rso forum impossible say present record viewpoint neutral state university opens limited forum must respect lawful boundaries set rosenberger hastings regulations registration student groups impose two substantive limitations group seeking registration must student members must app pet cert hastings board directors policies regulations applying college activities organizations students june hereinafter hastings regulations access forum limited groups devoted particular purposes regulations provide group applying registration must submit official document including statement purpose hastings regulations emphasis added regulations make attempt define limits acceptable purposes regulations require group seeking registration show certain number members program interest particular number hastings students regulations require group serve need met existing groups regulations also make clear registration program meant stifle unpopular speech proclaim responsibility dean ensure ongoing opportunity expression variety viewpoints hastings regulations also emphatically disclaim endorsement responsibility views student groups may express hastings regulations taken whole regulations plainly contemplate creation forum within hastings students free form obtain registration essentially broad range private groups nonstudents may form campus precisely parties case stipulated rso forum seeks promote diversity viewpoints among registered student organizations including viewpoints religion human sexuality app emphasis added way rso forum actually developed corroborates design noted hastings rsos independently devised purpose addressed serious social issues others example wine appreciation ultimate frisbee clubs simply recreational organizations focused subject claim promote particular viewpoint subject example association communications sports entertainment law others defined subject viewpoint forum single party politics club rather featured hastings democratic caucus hastings republicans reproductive issues club forum included separate organizations students see fit create monotheistic religions club formed hastings jewish law students association hastings association muslim law students short rso forum true design allowed hastings students replicate campus broad array private independent noncommercial organizations similar nonstudents formed outside world policy antithetical design rso forum reason policy violate first amendment rights private groups applied campus explained group first amendment right expressive association burdened forced inclusion members whose presence affec significant way group ability advocate public private viewpoints dale therefore held government may compel group engages expressive association admit member unless government compelling interest suppression ideas achieved means significantly less restrictive associational freedoms ibid quoting roberts dispute standard permit generally applicable law mandating private religious groups admit members share groups beliefs religious groups like cls obviously engage expressive association legitimate state interest override powerful effect law ability religious groups express views state california surely demand christian groups admit members believe jesus merely human jewish groups required admit holocaust deniers muslim groups forced admit persons viewed slandering islam question state california impose restrictions religious groups state holds hastings state institution may impose requirements students wish participate forum designed foster expression diverse viewpoints lists four justifications offered hastings defense policy deferring school judgment ante finds justifications satisfactory ante carry responsibility exercise independent judgment however must conclude justifications offered hastings accepted insufficient first says policy reasonable helps hastings ensure educational social afforded students ante quoting brief respondent hastings college law rso forum however designed achieve laudable ends different way permitting groups students matter small form groups want way forum multiplies opportunity students serve leadership positions allows students decide educational opportunities wish pursue participation extracurricular activities permits create social opportunities desire forming whatever groups wish create second approves policy easier enforce nondiscrimination policy replaced daunting labor warns hastings try determine whether group excluded member based belief opposed status ante see also ante opinion stevens referring impossible task separating religious discrimination strange argument since nondiscrimination policy prohibits discrimination substantially grounds antidiscrimination provisions many including california except inclusion prohibition discrimination based sexual orientation nondiscrimination policy also largely tracks federal antidiscrimination moreover hastings willingly accepts greater burdens latest policy apparently requires school distinguish certain conduct requirements allowed others hastings daunted labor determining whether club admissions exam legitimately tests knowledge pretext screening students disfavored beliefs asked oral argument whether cls require applicants pass test bible hastings attorney responded truly objective knowledge test okay tr oral arg long history disputes meaning bible passages belies suggestion easy task determine whether grading test objective third argues policy bringing together students diverse views encourages tolerance cooperation learning development skills ante obviously commendable goals undermined permitting religious group restrict membership persons share group faith many religious groups impose restrictions see brief agudath israel america amicus curiae ased upon jewish laws traditions orthodox jewish institutions regularly differentiate jews practices manifestations contempt members faiths cf ante opinion stevens invoking groups contempt jews blacks women thwart objectives hastings endorses country whole less hastings college law values tolerance cooperation learning amicable resolution conflicts seek achieve goals confident pluralism conduces civil peace advances democratic abridging first amendment rights brief gays lesbians individual liberty amicus curiae fourth observes hastings policy incorporates fact subsumes proscriptions discrimination ante first amendment obviously takes precedence state law justify hastings policy even true hastings policy considered policy goes far beyond california antidiscrimination law neither hastings claims california law demands state entities must accept comers hastings certainly follow policy hiring student admissions clear california law requires hastings deny registration religious group limits membership students share group religious beliefs hastings cites california decision administrative authority addressing question instead hastings points statute prohibiting discrimination specified grounds including religion sexual orientation program activity conducted certain postsecondary educational institutions cal educ code ann west supp emphasis added hastings however conduct activities student groups registers indeed hastings disclaims responsibility stating regulations handbook student organizations sponsor student organizations therefore accept liability activities student organizations app pet cert hastings regulations app addition cls notes another provision california law specifically exempts funds used directly indirectly benefit student organizations ban state funding private groups discriminate grounds listed see west supp authority decide whether provision california law requires religious student groups covered institutions admit members share groups religious views course question state law resolve materials brought attention however provide little support majority suggested interpretation sum hastings policy reasonable light stipulated purpose rso forum promote diversity viewpoints among within registered student organizations app emphasis added also wrong holding policy viewpoint neutral proclaims hard imagine policy ante quick jump conclusion even assumed policy viewpoint neutral strong evidence record policy announced pretext adoption facially neutral policy purpose suppressing expression particular viewpoint viewpoint discrimination see crawford board ed los angeles law neutral face still may unconstitutional motivated discriminatory purpose simple example illustrates obvious point suppose hated student group state university never able attract members suppose university administration purpose preventing group using school grounds meetings adopts new rule use facilities restricted groups members although rule neutral face adoption discriminatory reason illegal cls made strong showing hastings sudden adoption selective application policy pretext law school unlawful denial cls registration application nondiscrimination policy shifting policies hastings denied cls application fall policy mentioned nondiscrimination policy july former dean suggested deposition law school actually followed different policy march year hastings brief rolled still third policy recognized employment discrimination context issues pretext regularly arise ubstantial changes time employer proffered reason employment decision support finding pretext kobrin university minnesota see also aragon republic silver state disposal cicero automotive timing timing hastings revelation new policies closely tracks law school litigation posture hastings denied cls registration cited nondiscrimination policy later cls alleged nondiscrimination policy discriminated religious groups hastings unveiled policy granted certiorari cls opening brief challenged constitutionality plausibility policy hastings disclosed new policy true employment context hen justification adverse action changes litigation inconsistency raises issue whether proffered reason truly motivated defendant decision cicero supra lack documentation employer written policy relies rule written documentation deviation may support inference pretext see diaz eagle produce partnership rudin lincoln land community college machinchick pb power russell tg missouri mohammed callaway hastings claims policy since produced single written document memorializing policy cited single occasion prior dean deposition putative policy orally disclosed either student groups interested applying registration office student services charged reviewing bylaws applicant groups ensure compliance law school policies nonenforcement since appears one told policy july surprising policy enforced record replete evidence hastings made effort enforce policy proclaimed former dean see app pet cert hastings democratic caucus association trial lawyers america hastings vietnamese american law society silent right app la raza see generally supra record sufficient permit finding pretext law pretext dead understandably sidesteps issue lower courts address argument hastings selectively enforces policy proper forum air issue first instance remand ninth circuit may consider cls pretext argument extent preserved ante affirms entry summary judgment favor respondents clear cls able ask ninth circuit remand review claim pretext argument address issue pretext ninth circuit hard take given ninth circuit barely addressed anything disposing case precisely two sentences neither two sentences addressed novel question ante bulk opinion devoted whether policy reasonable light purposes rso forum viewpoint neutral see ante appropriate us consider issue ninth circuit failure address issue pretext stand way review one final aspect decision warrants comment response argument permit small unpopular group taken students wish silence message policy permit registered group impose membership requirements designed ensure students join commitment group vitality demise ante concession tacitly recognizes hastings really policy policy line members merely seek change group message apparently must admitted seek group demise may kept hopelessly vague example christian denominations agree cls views sexual morality matters recent year cls seven members suppose students members denominations disagree cls decided cls misrepresenting true christian doctrine suppose students joined cls elected officers shared views ended group affiliation national organization changed group message new leadership likely proclaim group vital rectified cls assume take view old group suffered demise whether change represents reform transformation may depend much eye beholder justice kennedy takes similarly mistaken tack contends cls substantial case merits shown policy used infiltrate group challenge leadership order stifle views ante concurring opinion explain ground claim succeed holds policy viewpoint neutral reasonable light purposes rso forum characteristics altered change membership one forum registered groups explanation apparent end refuses acknowledge consequences holding true policy permits small unpopular groups taken students wish change views group expresses rules requiring members attend meetings pay dues behave politely see ante eliminate threat possibility takeovers however means important effect holding religious groups good conscience agree bylaws admit persons share faith groups consequence policy marginalization see brief evangelical scholars officers former presidents evangelical theological society et al amici curiae affirmance case allow every public college university exclude evangelical christian organizations brief agudath israel america amicus curiae affirmance point judicial dagger heart orthodox jewish community permit community relegated status group brief union orthodox jewish congregations america amicus curiae affirmance significantly affect ability affiliated student clubs youth movements prescribe requirements membership leaders based religious beliefs commitments decision leads think exaggeration say today decision serious setback freedom expression country first amendment reflects profound national commitment principle debate public issues uninhibited robust new york times sullivan even nation shares commitment extent change law conform international norm fear decision marks turn direction even find cls views objectionable concerned way group treated hastings appeals hope decision turn aberration footnotes policies regulations address wide range matters example alcoholic beverages campus events bake sales blood drives app th policy hastings clarifies foreclose neutral generally applicable membership requirements unrelated beliefs brief hastings long students opportunity participate equal terms rsos may require inter alia pay dues maintain good attendance refrain gross misconduct pass test writing competitions administered law journals see ibid dissent trumpets neutral generally applicable membership requirements arguing truth hastings policy post opinion alito hastings policy however requires student organizations open eligibility membership leadership regardless student status beliefs dues attendance skill measurements comparable uniformly applied standards fully compatible policy dissent makes much hastings observation groups imposed even conduct requirements post example hastings cites leaves doubt law school referring boilerplate standards embership may cease member found involved gross misconduct app cited brief hastings statement faith provides trusting jesus christ savior believe one god eternally existent three persons father son holy spirit god father almighty maker heaven earth deity lord jesus christ god son conceived holy spirit born virgin mary vicarious death sins receive eternal life bodily resurrection personal return presence power holy spirit work regeneration bible inspired word god app district allowed respondent hastings outlaw rso committed combating discrimination based sexual orientation intervene suit briefs district appeals cls several times affirmed hastings imposes rule rsos see plaintiff notice motion summary judgment memorandum support motion summary judgment jsw nd cal hastings interprets nondiscrimination policy student organizations must allow student regardless status beliefs participate group activities meetings become voting members leaders group brief appellant pp hastings illustrates application nondiscrimination policy explaining hastings democratic caucus gain recognition must open leadership voting membership hearing district cls counsel reiterated important understand hastings policy according stipulated facts hastings requires registered student organizations allow student participate become member seek leadership positions organization regardless status beliefs app capitalization internal quotation marks omitted oral argument counsel cls acknowledged needs reach constitutionality policy applied cls case tr oral arg emphasis added repeat regard hastings policy hardly novel law schools adopted similar requirements see supra brief association american law schools amicus curiae dissent spills considerable ink attempting create uncertainty policy adopted see post counts however parties unqualified agreement policy currently governs cls suit seeks declaratory injunctive prospective relief see app first amended verified complaint declaratory injunctive relief record evidence moreover corroborates joint stipulation concerning hastings policy law school dean testified example order registered student organization allow students members full participants want app hastings director student services confirmed rsos must open students even students may disagree rso purposes internal quotation marks omitted see also hastings interprets nondiscrimination policy requiring student organizations wishing register hastings allow hastings student become member seek leadership position effort undermine stipulation dissent emphasizes sentence hastings answer cls first amended complaint dissent contends casts doubt hastings fidelity policy see post context hastings answer responded cls allegation law school singles religious groups discriminatory treatment sensibly read convey hastings policies regulations apply groups equally see app denying nondiscrimination policy imposes religious organizations restraints applied political social cultural groups event parties joint stipulation supersedes answer extent conflict two filings see pepper tanner shamrock broadcasting parties stipulation facts superseded prior pleadings controlled subsequent course dissent indulges suggests making factual findings hastings policy post cls petition certiorari stressed material facts case undisputed pet cert emphasis added take facts joint stipulation describes see supra decision respects dissent ignores conclusive effect parties accord dissent contrast devotes considerable attention cls arguments nondiscrimination policy written post decline address arguments agree dissent nondiscrimination policy plainly unconstitutional post noted supra constitutional question properly presented conducting forum analysis decisions sorted government property three categories first traditional public forums public streets parks restriction based content speech must satisfy strict scrutiny restriction must narrowly tailored serve compelling government interest pleasant grove city summum slip second governmental entities create designated public forums government property traditionally regarded public forum intentionally opened purpose speech restrictions forum subject strict scrutiny restrictions traditional public forum slip third governmental entities establish limited public forums opening property limited use certain groups dedicated solely discussion certain subjects ibid noted text forum governmental entity may impose restrictions speech reasonable ibid decisions make clear parties agree hastings rso program established limited public forum see rosenberger rector visitors univ tr oral arg counsel cls brief petitioner brief hastings brief hastings outlaw fact university expends funds encourage diversity views private speakers held justify discriminat ing based viewpoint private persons whose speech facilitates rosenberger applying analysis prohibits viewpoint discrimination cls expressive association claim emphasize upset principle cls also brackets precedents decision hurley gay lesbian bisexual group boston veterans group sponsoring patrick day parade challenged state law requiring allow gay individuals march parade behind banner celebrating irish heritage sexual orientation evaluating challenge hurley focused veterans group interest controlling message conveyed organization see whether hurley best conceptualized speech association case however precedent little help cls hurley involved application statewide law traditional public forums street context differs markedly limited public forum issue university application policy program dissent relies heavily healy post otherwise exhaustive account case elides fact healy identified dispositive president college explicitly denied student group official recognition group viewpoint see mere disagreement president group philosophy affords reason deny case contrast hastings denied cls recognition school wanted silence viewpoint cls sought express membership requirements post cls insisting preferential treatment declined comply policy applicable rsos see paul state target conduct basis expressive content acts shielded regulation merely express discriminatory philosophy emphasis added discussed infra hastings policy paradigmatically viewpoint neutral dissent contention identity student group way distinguishing healy post thus untenable dissent description healy also omits healy observation college administration may requir group seeking official recognition affirm advance willingness adhere reasonable campus law requirement impose impermissible condition students associational rights merely constitutes agreement conform reasonable standards respecting conduct benefits participation internal life college community may denied group reserves right violate valid campus rules disagrees dissent mischaracterizes nature respect accord hastings see post noted supra exercising independent judgment must interpre appl right free speech post determinations constitutes sound educational policy goals forum serve fall within discretion school administrators educators see board ed hendrick hudson central school westchester cty rowley although dissent maintains content address constitutionality hastings actions limited public forum cases post resists import cases every turn example although dissent acknowledges university authority set boundaries limited public forum post dissent refuses credit hastings policy one boundaries see ibid insisting hastings regulations impose two substantive limitations group must student members must short design rso forum post dissent discusses length post tailoring another example dissent pointedly observes hile question state california impose restrictio religious groups state holds hastings state institution may impose requirements students wish participate forum designed foster expression diverse viewpoints post noted supra difference reflects lesser standard scrutiny applicable limited public forums compared forums dissent fights distinction state prohibition state support real quarrel limited public forum doctrine recognizes distinction cls bears repetition remains free express whatever insist exemption hastings embracive policy cls notes activities bible studies speakers dinners open students even attendees barred membership leadership reply brief welcoming comers guests auditors however hardly equivalent accepting comers participants cls predecessor organization hastings christian fellowship hcf experienced benefits welcomed openly gay student member academic year student testified another hcf member joy group brought unique perspective discussions see app although law school offered multiple justifications policy suggest necessary policy survive constitutional review see baker despite lack university recognition pi kappa theta continues grow new hampshire pp unrecognized fraternity able grow despite severed ties university new hampshire battey final clubs provide controversial social outlet yale daily news apr pp harvard social clubs known final clubs play large role experience students even though became completely disassociated university cls concern shared dissent see post policy squelch diversity borne hastings experience academic year approximately student organizations representing variety interests registered hastings clara foltz feminist association environmental law society hastings chinese law culture society app three registered groups religious orientation hastings association muslim law students hastings jewish law students association hastings koinonia hastings notes checks also place prevent brief hastings law school student code conduct applies rso activities inter alia prohibits obstruction disruption disorderly conduct threats ibid internal quotation marks brackets omitted arguing policy reasonable light rso forum purposes dissent notes title vii prohibits employment discrimination basis religion among categories provides exception religious associations post question however whether hastings consistent constitution provide religious groups dispensation policy permitting restrict membership share faith instead whether hastings must grant exemption decision employment dept human resources smith unequivocally answers latter question see also infra relying exclusively board regents univ system southworth dissent quick jump th conclusion policy viewpoint neutral post careful consideration southworth however reveals desperate dissent argument southworth university students challenged mandatory fee used fund student groups finding political ideological speech certain groups offensive argued imposition fee violated first amendment rights upheld university choice subsidize groups whose expression students found distasteful admonished university prefer viewpoints others distribution funds cautioned university referendum process allowed students vote whether student organization receive financial support risked violation principle allowing students select groups fund based viewpoints case contrast policy governs rsos hastings pick choose organizations must comply policy basis viewpoint app southworth accordingly provides support dissent warped analysis although registered student groups must conform conduct law school regulation dropping access barriers may express viewpoint wish including discriminatory one cf rumsfeld forum academic institutional rights general matter solomon amendment regulates conduct speech affects law schools must afford equal access military recruiters may may today decision thus continues tradition protect ing freedom express thought hate post alito dissenting quoting schwimmer holmes dissenting cls briefly argues hastings condition violates free exercise clause brief petitioner decision smith forecloses argument smith held free exercise clause inhibit enforcement otherwise valid regulations general application incidentally burden religious conduct seeking exemption hastings policy cls repeat seeks preferential equal treatment therefore moor request accommodation free exercise clause finding ninth circuit analysis cursory dissent repeatedly urges us resolve pretext question see post dissent forgets review first view cutter wilkinson lower courts failed address argument deserved attention usual practice remand consideration seize opportunity decide question especially true agree review issue understanding material facts undisputed cls petition certiorari emphasized case pet cert dissent pretext discussion presents summary record evidence post account depending large part impugning veracity distinguished legal scholar well respected school administrator post see also supra footnotes dissent appears accept hastings may prohibit discrimination basis religious status though rejects notion hastings may religious belief see post cls sought exclude muslim student virtue fact muslim dissent suggests problem hastings forbidding cls sought exclude student virtue fact subscribes muslim faith hastings must stand idly proposition unworkable practice also flawed conception person religion often simultaneously constitutes informs status identity set beliefs practices much else besides sexual orientation matter see ante notwithstanding dissent view rule excluding engage unrepentant homosexual conduct app discriminate basis status identity post first amendment doctrine never required university administrators undertake impossible task separating religious discrimination see madsen women health center paul board directors rotary rotary club duarte roberts jaycees cf employment dept human resources smith never held individual religious beliefs excuse compliance otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct state free regulate courts commentators applied insight exact situation posed nondiscrimination policy see christian legal society walker stating little doubt comparable nondiscrimination policy viewpoint neutral face truth kent school similar volokh freedom expressive association government subsidies stan rev case antidiscrimination policy even explicitly directed preventing religious discrimination rather hard swallow dissent ominous closing remarks see post suggesting today decision point judicial dagger heart religious groups internal quotation marks omitted although dissent willing see pernicious antireligious motives implications none seem troubled fact religious sects unfortunately social groups persecuted throughout history simply footnotes cls consistently argued courts hastings applied registration policy discriminatory manner see plaintiff notice motion summary judgment memorandum support motion summary judgment nd cal pp hastings allows registered student organizations require members leaders agree organization beliefs purposes cls took pains bring forward evidence substantiate claim see supra cls brief appeals reiterated contention hastings required rsos admit student applicants cls brief stated hastings allows registered student organizations require leaders members agree organization beliefs purposes brief appellant pp citing examples see also hastings routinely recognizes student groups limit membership leadership basis belief hastings actual practice demonstrates forum reserved student organizations discriminate basis belief responding arguments law school remarked cls repeatedly asserts routinely recognizes student groups limit membership leadership basis belief brief appellees attempts distinguish healy ground college explicitly denied student group official recognition group viewpoint ante however true cls denied recognition nondiscrimination policy viewpoint cls sought express membership requirements see supra infra strong evidence hastings abruptly shifted nondiscrimination policy policy pretext viewpoint discrimination see infra cls sought declaratory judgment policy unconstitutional injunction prohibiting enforcement see app particularly light hastings practice changing announced policies requests moot well settled voluntary cessation allegedly unlawful conduct moot case legality conduct challenged see city mesquite aladdin castle see also allee medrano defunis odegaard per curiam rule otherwise courts compelled leave defendant free return old ways concentrated phosphate export quoting grant certainly risk hastings return old ways therefore cls requests declaratory injunctive relief respect nondiscrimination policy moot assumes parties stipulated relevant policy policy district addressed constitutionality nondiscrimination policy district approved policies appeals affirmed judgment judgment remains binding cls appropriate cls permitted challenge determination question constitutionality nondiscrimination policy falls comfortably within question presented cls raised issue brief see brief petitioner rosenberger university argued denial student activity funding groups sought express religious viewpoint facially neutral see brief respondents rosenberger rector visitors univ rosenberger dissenters agreed university policy constitute viewpoint discrimination applie muslim jewish buddhist advocacy well christian applie agnostics atheists well deists theists opinion souter cf ante opinion stevens asserting hastings nondiscrimination policy acts religious discrimination prohibited emphasis added flatly rejected argument see religion may vast area inquiry also provides specific premise perspective standpoint variety subjects may discussed considered clear justice stevens means refers religious status opposed religious belief see ante religious status means things religion person born religion person ancestors prohibiting discrimination grounds involve viewpoint discrimination immutable characteristics quite different viewpoint clarify point suggesting conduct requirement must relate gross misconduct ante helpful see cal gov code ann west stat ann west exec law ann west see civil rights act et seq title vii civil rights act stat amended et seq title vi age discrimination employment act stat amended et seq americans disabilities act stat et seq however title vii prohibits employment discrimination basis religion provides religious associations schools hire basis religion employer hire basis religion bona fide occupational qualification although held sponsor limited public forum must respect lawful boundaries set rosenberger says exclusion group challenged sponsor retroactively redraw boundary lines order justify exclusion see ante approach respect prior holding board regents univ system southworth considered university rule permitting defund ing registered student group student referendum see extent referendum substitutes majority determinations viewpoint neutrality observed undermine constitutional protection university registered student organization program requires whole theory viewpoint neutrality minority views treated respect majority views ibid hastings policy bears resemblance southwark referendum process permit majority silence disfavored organization force cls argument llowing students join lead group even disagree tantamount establishing majoritarian heckler veto potentially turn every group organ opinion brief petitioner attempts distinguish southworth involving funding mechanism student groups operated selectively based groups viewpoints ante mechanism student referendum process placed students risk required pay fees subsidies speech find objectionable even offensive solely upon majority vote student body see different principle policy places student organizations risk majority hostile group viewpoint previously noted cls consistently argued courts hastings applied registration policy discriminatory manner see supra ignore arguments counsel cls acknowledged hastings policy see ante quoting examples acknowledges counsel cls stated oral argument needs reach constitutionality policy applied cls case tr oral arg emphasis added ante record shows cls never ceded argument hastings applies policy unequally