Find Court Cases > Christian Legal Society Chapter v. Martinez

Christian Legal Society Chapter v. Martinez

Case Date: 04/19/2010
Docket No: none

Facts of the Case 

The Christian Legal Society Chapter of the University of California, Hastings College of Law (CLS) filed suit against the university in a California federal district for violating its First Amendment rights. The Hastings College of Law failed to recognize the CLS as an official student organization because state law requires all registered student organizations to allow "any student to participate, become a member, or seek leadership positions, regardless of their status or beliefs." In contrast, CLS requires its members to attest in writing that "I believe in: The Bible as the inspired word of God; The Deity of our Lord, Jesus Christ, God's son; The vicarious death of Jesus Christ for our sins; His bodily resurrection and His personal return; The presence and power of the Holy Spirit in the work of regeneration; [and] Jesus Christ, God's son, is Lord of my life." The district court dismissed the case.

On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that the school's conditions on recognizing student groups were viewpoint neutral and reasonable. Therefore, the school's conditions did not violate the CLS's First Amendment rights.

Read the Briefs for this Case
  • Brief of Amici Curiae States of Michigan, Alabama, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Nebraska, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia, And West Virginia In Support of Petitioner
  • Brief of Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America as Amicus Curiae In Support of Petitioner
  • Brief for American Jewish Committee, Americans United for Separation of Church And State, And Union for Reform Judaism as Amici Curiae Supporting Respondents
  • Brief for International Municipal Lawyers Association, National League of Cities, And the United States Conference of Mayors as Amici Curiae Supporting Respondents
  • Brief Amici Curiae of the American Humanist Association, the American Ethical Union, Atheist Alliance International, Freedom From Religion Foundation, Institute for Humanist Studies, Military Association of Atheists And Freethinkers And Secular Student Al
  • Brief of the Center for Inquiry as Amicus Curiae In Support of Respondents
  • Brief of the Society of American Law Teachers as Amicus Curiae In Support of Respondents
  • Brief of State Universities And State University Systems as Amici Curiae In Support of Respondents
  • Brief of Amici Curiae Association of Christian Schools International, Azusa Pacific University, Bethesda Ministries, Cherry Hills Community Church, Christian Camp And Conference Association, Colorado Christian University, Compassion International, Council
  • Brief Amici Curiae of Commissioned II Love, Cornerstone At Boise State University, And Kappa Upsilon Chi, In Support of the Petitioners.
  • Brief for Amici Curiae American Center for Law And Justice, Bridget Mergens, Jonathan Williams, Wide Awake Productions, Choose Him, Fellowship of Christian Athletes, Campus Crusade for Christ, Intervarsity Christian Fellowship, Campus Bible Fellowship Int
  • Brief of Amici Curiae Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty And the Interfaith Alliance Foundation In Support of Neither Party
  • Brief of Amicus Curiae Boy Scouts of America In Support of Petitioner
  • Brief Amici Curiae of Christian Medical And Dental Associations, Beta Upsilon Chi, And Officers of Various Christian Legal Society Student Chapters In Support of Petitioner
  • Brief of Amicus Curiae Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund In Support of Petitioner
  • Brief of Amici Curiae Evangelical Scholars (officers And 24 Former Presidents of the Evangelical Theological Society), Evangelicals for Social Action, And National Association of Evangelicals, In Support of Petitioner
    • Question 

    Did the Ninth Circuit err when its holding runs directly contrary to the Seventh Circuit's 2006 decision in Christian Legal Society v. Walker?

    Argument Christian Legal Society Chapter v. Martinez - Oral ArgumentFull Transcript Text  Download MP3Christian Legal Society Chapter v. Martinez - Opinion AnnouncementFull Transcript Text  Download MP3 Conclusion  Decision: 5 votes for Martinez, 4 vote(s) against Legal provision: U.S. Constitution, Amendment 1, Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Association

    No. The Supreme Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit, holding that the college's all-comers policy is a reasonable, viewpoint-neutral condition on access to the student organization forum; and, therefore, did not transgress First Amendment limitations. With Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg writing for the majority, the Court reasoned that the same considerations that have led the Court to apply a less restrictive level of scrutiny to speech in limited public forums, counseled the same result in this case. The Court further reasoned that, considering this constitutional inquiry occurs in the education context, Hasting's all-comers policy is reasonable and viewpoint neutral.

    Justice John Paul Stevens, wrote separately, concurring. He agreed with the Court's holding and answered an argument raised by CLS that Hasting's Nondiscrimination Policy would be "plainly unconstitutional" if addressed in this case. He disagreed with CLS noting that while the First Amendment may protect CLS' discriminatory practices off campus, it does not require a public university to validate or support such practices. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy also concurred. He noted that to be effective, a limited forum will exclude some speakers based on their affiliation, as occurred in this case. Justice Samuel A. Alito, joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, dissented. He critiqued the majority for expounding the principle: "no freedom for expression that offends prevailing standards of political correctness in our country's institutions of higher learning." He argued that the majority arms public institutions with a "handy weapon" for suppressing the speech of unpopular groups.