SCOTUS Rules Against Christian Legal Society

In the second most important case of the 2009-2010 Supreme Court term for LGBT people (last Thursday's Doe v. Reed 8-1 ruling that ballot proposition signers have no implicit right to anonymity was probably the most important) the court has ruled 5-4 in favor of the University of California Hastings Law School and against the Christian Legal Society to preserve the principle that a public university's discrimination policy that includes sexual orientation, gender identity and religion can compel any student group that wants official recognition and funding to abide by that nondiscrimination policy.

The Chronicle of Higher Education wrote:

The Supreme Court's decision, by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, found that the law school's policy was "a reasonable, viewpoint-neutral condition on access" that did not raise First Amendment issues in the way the Christian Legal Society argued.

The opinion explicitly rejects the argument of the Christian Legal Society that a public university has no business limiting its ability to be recognized and to apply its own rules to membership. "CLS’s analytical error lies in focusing on the benefits it must forgo while ignoring the interests of those it seeks to fence out: Exclusion, after all, has two sides," the decision says. "Hastings, caught in the crossfire between a group’s desire to exclude and students’ demand for equal access, may reasonably draw a line in the sand permitting all organizations to express what they wish but no groupto discriminate in membership."

A dissent, by Justice Samuel Alito, blasted the decision, saying that it set principle of "no freedom for expression that offends prevailing standards of political correctness in our country’s institutions of higher learning."

Many public colleges and universities have anti-bias policies similar to those of Hastings, so a ruling for the Christian Legal Society would have forced changes at many institutions. The issue has been particularly intense at public law schools (where the Christian Legal Society has sought recognition) and at undergraduate institutions with Greek systems (when Christian fraternities have sought recognition). Some public colleges and universities – faced with legal threats by supporters of the Christian Legal Society – have changed their policies to exempt religious groups, and those institutions could conceivably now reconsider.

This case has been closely watched by law professor friends of mine like Nan Hunter of Georgetown Law School and Art Leonard of New York Law School.

Human Rights Campaign issued a statement:

“Today, the Court upheld an important principle for all Americans, that government should not be forced to subsidize discrimination,” said HRC President Joe Solmonese. “UC Hastings and schools like it all over the country have worked hard to create welcoming spaces for all students, including those who are lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender. Today’s decision bolsters those efforts, while recognizing that Christian Legal Society, and groups like it, are free exclude whomever they want – without the financial support of their fellow students or taxpayers.”

Amazingly, Justice Ginsburg, who wrote the majority opinion (joined by Stevens, Kennedy, Sotomayor and Breyer), read parts of her opinion before the Court aloud, the day after her husband of 56 years(!) died. Thank you Justice Ginsburg for your service to our country. May you enjoy serving on a supreme court (for at least one year) that is one-third female!

UPDATED 06/28/2010 11:38AM PDT

MadProfessah friend and openly gay USC Law Professor David Cruz weighs in with his thoughts on CLS v. Martinez, and Lambda Legal releases a statement:

"We're extremely pleased the Court has found that discrimination is discrimination, however you try to package it," said Jon Davidson, Legal Director of Lambda Legal. "CLS was attempting to draw a distinction between status and conduct. But when an organization has a membership requirement that one must believe conduct central to one's identity is immoral, that's the same thing as excluding people for who they are. It's wrong of CLS to expect students to fund a group that wouldn't have them as a member. The Court wisely rejected CLS's attempt to obtain what the Court recognized as 'preferential, not equal treatment' under the school's rules applicable to all other recognized clubs." Registration as a student organization at Hastings gives groups the right to use Hastings' name and logo, access to a university email address, limited use of facilities, and modest university funds for travel and other expenses. CLS sued in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, arguing that, by not allowing it to become a supported student group, Hastings had violated CLS's rights of free speech, association and religious freedom under the U.S. Constitution. The group maintained it did not bar membership to gays, but rather to those who engaged in homosexual conduct. The District Court rejected these claims and found in Hastings' favor, as did the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals last year.

The Task Force's Rea Carey said:

“The Supreme Court ruled correctly in rejecting the challenge from the Christian Legal Society, which sought school funding and recognition despite being in clear violation of the college’s nondiscrimination policy. The court rightly found that the First Amendment rights of association, free speech and free exercise were not violated by Hastings’ decision. It simply said the college did not have to fund a group that violated the school policy requiring all recognized student groups to be open to every student. Schools all across the country are working to create welcoming environments for all students. This ruling supports that important effort. No school group or organization should be given public money to discriminate against other students.”