Law Review Articles About Christian Legal Society V Martinez

2010 United States Supreme Court case

Christian Legal Society five. Martinez
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued April nineteen, 2010 Decided June 28, 2010
Total case name	Christian Legal Society Chapter of the University of California, Hastings College of the Police, aka Hastings Christian Fellowship 5. Martinez, et al.
Docket no.	08-1371
Citations	561 U.S. 661 (more) 130 S. Ct. 2971; 177 L. Ed. 2nd 838; 2010 U.Due south. LEXIS 5367
Statement	Oral statement
Instance history
Prior	Judgment for defendants affirmed, Christian Legal Club v. Kane, 319 F. App'ten 645 (9th Cir. 2009), cert. granted, 558 U.South. 661 (2011).
Subsequent	Sent to Lower, Christian Legal Order v. Wu, 626 F.3d 483 (ninth Cir. 2010)
Property
The policy of Hastings, which requires student groups to accept all students regardless of their condition or behavior in social club to obtain official recognition, is a reasonable, viewpoint-neutral condition on access to the forum; it therefore does not transgress First Subpoena limitations. Courtroom of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed and remanded.
Court membership
Master Justice John Roberts Acquaintance Justices John P. Stevens· Antonin Scalia Anthony Kennedy· Clarence Thomas Ruth Bader Ginsburg· Stephen Breyer Samuel Alito· Sonia Sotomayor
Instance opinions
Majority	Ginsburg, joined by Stevens, Kennedy, Breyer, Sotomayor
Concurrence	Stevens
Concurrence	Kennedy
Dissent	Alito, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Thomas
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. I

Christian Legal Social club v. Martinez , 561 U.S. 661 (2010), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld, confronting a First Subpoena challenge, the policy of the University of California, Hastings College of the Law, governing official recognition of student groups, which required the groups to accept all students regardless of their condition or behavior in order to obtain recognition.^[1]

Background [edit]

Hastings's nondiscrimination policy required that recognized student organizations (RSOs) "'let whatsoever educatee to participate, become a member, or seek leadership positions in the organization'", regardless of the beliefs or status of that educatee.^[one] In 2004, Christian Legal Guild (CLS) applied for RSO status. Every bit an affiliate of the national Christian Legal Gild, the group was obliged to adopt bylaws that required "members and officers to sign a 'Argument of Organized religion' and to bear their lives in accordance with prescribed principles".^[1] Those principles included a belief that a union between a woman and a homo is the only appropriate context for sexual action; thus, CLS "interprets its bylaws to exclude from affiliation anyone who engages in 'unrepentant homosexual conduct'". In addition, CLS would not acknowledge students whose religious beliefs differed from those set along in the Argument of Religion.^[ane]

Hastings denied CLS recognition as a student organization.^{[ii] [3]} CLS and so asked Hastings for an exemption from its nondiscrimination policy; Hastings declined to provide such an exemption.^[1] CLS sued, arguing that the university, as a public institution, could not restrict the group's rights to liberty of oral communication, association, and religion. The National Center for Lesbian Rights represented Hastings Outlaw, a campus gay rights group that joined Acting Chancellor and Dean Leo P. Martinez to defend the policy.^[four] Latham & Watkins decided to correspond Hastings pro bono, and one-time Solicitor Full general Gregory G. Garre argued the case at the Supreme Court.^{[v] [vi]}

Opinion of the Court [edit]

CLS argued that Hastings could modify its policy to allow an RSO to exclude a student if that student's "beliefs and conduct" did not correspond with those of the RSO, merely could not let a pupil to be excluded from an organization based on the student'due south "status"--that is, race or gender. The Court, in a majority opinion authored by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, held that such a policy would require Hastings to review each RSO'south exclusionary rules to determine "whether a student organization cloaked prohibited status exclusion in conventionalities-based garb". The Court offered the case of a hypothetical "Male-Supremacy Club" that forbade a female member from running for its presidency, leaving Hastings to determine whether her ballot bid was denied considering of her sexual practice or because she did not attach to the doctrine of male person supremacy. Since the particular issue in the case involved the exclusion of homosexual students, CLS had asserted that it did not restrict membership based on sexual orientation but based on "conduct and belief that the conduct is non incorrect". The Court rejected that distinction, noting that with respect to sexual orientation, the court had "declined to distinguish between status and bear" and offering a parallel from Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic:^[7] "A taxation on wearing yarmulkes is a tax on Jews".^[1]

The Court's analysis explained how the instant case differed from two earlier cases involving academy funding of educatee groups. In Healy v. James, 408 U.S. 169 (1972), the Court required Central Connecticut Land College to recognize a affiliate of the Students for a Autonomous Order,^[8] and in Rosenberger v. Academy of Virginia (1995), the Courtroom ruled that student religious publications were entitled to equal funding at the University of Virginia.^[9] In these cases, the educational institutions singled out a group for unfavorable handling based on that grouping'due south purpose (leftist activism in the outset instance and Christian evangelism in the second). In the instant case, by dissimilarity, the Court held that Hastings sought to treat all pupil groups every bit; the CLS, on the other hand, sought an exemption for their detail membership policies.^[10]

Thus, the Courtroom held that the Hastings nondiscrimination policy was a reasonable, viewpoint-neutral brake that did non violate the First Subpoena.

Stevens' concurrence [edit]

In his concurring opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens noted that CLS denies membership to those who engage in "unrepentant homosexual conduct" and reasoned that the aforementioned argument could be made by groups that "may exclude or mistreat Jews, blacks, and women – or those who practice not share their contempt for Jews, blacks, and women".^[xi]

Kennedy's concurrence [edit]

In his concurring opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy observed that like-minded students may be less effective when forced to accept members of different viewpoints, but found the benefits of an all-inclusive condition more valuable. Kennedy opined that Hastings' all-comers policy promotes student development and growth, which is a legitimate purpose for a limited forum.

Dissent [edit]

This section needs expansion. Yous can help by calculation to it. (August 2011)

Justice Samuel Alito wrote a dissenting opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia and Thomas. The dissent disagreed on a major point: whether Hastings' policy was an "all-comers" policy or a "nondiscrimination" policy. If the latter, the Society would not be able to reject members based on their legally protected status just could discriminate on the basis of deport or belief. Alito likened the instance to Male child Scouts v. Dale, where the "message" of the group was burdened past the forced inclusion of unwanted members.

Subsequent developments [edit]

The court'due south decision, especially Ginsburg'due south give-and-take of "condition" and "deport", was promptly cited by plaintiffs in Perry five. Schwarzenegger as Supreme Courtroom precedent that sexual orientation is "an identifiable class", opposing the defense's argument that sexual orientation is "behavioral".^{[12] [xiii]}

On June xxx, 2010, Peter Schmidt wrote in the Chronicle of Higher Education that it was unlikely that the ruling would finish litigation over policies on student groups and that colleges should not think that their policies on student groups are immune to legal challenges as a result of the decision.^[xiv] Others warned that the decision threatened the rights of on-campus student media organizations.^[15]

See likewise [edit]

• Employment Partition v. Smith

References [edit]

1. ^ ^{a b c d e f} Christian Legal Gild v. Martinez, 561 U.S. 661 (2010). This article incorporates public domain material from this U.South government document.
2. ^ Liptak, Adam (June 28, 2010), "Justices Rule Confronting Grouping That Excludes Gay Students", The New York Times, retrieved July ane, 2010
3. ^ Schmidt, Peter, "Constitutional Rights Clash in Boxing of Police force Schoolhouse and Christian Group", The Chronicle of Higher Education, March 28, 2010
4. ^ Barnes, Robert (April eighteen, 2010). "Supreme Courtroom to consider instance confronting California law school". Washington Mail service.
5. ^ "Court splits sharply on campus Christian argument". Fox News. April xix, 2010.
6. ^ Sarah Murray (Nov three, 2011). "Litigation: cartoon the line". Financial Times.
7. ^ Bray v. Alexandria Women'south Health Clinic, 506 U.S. 263 (1993).
8. ^ Healy v. James, 408 U.Due south. 169 (1972).
9. ^ Rosenberger five. University of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819 (organization).
10. ^ Bravin, Jess and Nathan Koppel, "School Can Deny Funding to Group", The Wall Street Periodical, June 29, 2010
11. ^ Barnes, Robert (June 29, 2010), "Justices say school tin can require student groups to accept all who are interested", The Washington Post, retrieved July 1, 2010
12. ^ Mauro, Tony (July one, 2010), "Loftier court's Christian Legal Society ruling already making waves" Archived July 12, 2010, at archive.today, Kickoff Amendment Center, retrieved July i, 2010
13. ^ Liptak, Adam (July 19, 2010) "Looking for Time Bombs and Tea Leaves on Gay Marriage", The New York Times, retrieved July 20, 2010
14. ^ Schmidt, Peter, "Ruling Is Unlikely to End Litigation Over Policies on Student Groups", The Relate of College Education, June xxx, 2010
15. ^ Pritchard, Andrew D. (June 2013). "Come One, Come up All Into the Newsroom? Student Publications After Christian Legal Society 5. Martinez". Journalism & Mass Advice Quarterly. 90 (two): 287–307. doi:10.1177/1077699013482905.

External links [edit]

• Text of Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, 561 U.Due south. 661 (2010) is bachelor from:CourtListener Google Scholar Justia Oyez (oral argument audio) Supreme Courtroom (skid opinion)
• CLS five. Martinez at SCOTUSwiki
• Transcript of oral arguments

sinclairtelf1991.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Legal_Society_v._Martinez

Share this post