“What the court did not decide is whether a nondiscrimination policy — one that prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion or sexual orientation, for example — trumps students’ First Amendment rights.”
In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down an unexpected setback for First Amendment protections today when it chose to uphold an unusual university policy rather than address the key issue at stake — religious freedom.
The Christian Legal Society’s (CLS) chapter at the University of California — Hastings College of Law — filed a lawsuit in 2004 against school administrators. The school had denied the group recognition based on leadership and voting membership requirements, including adhering to the CLS Statement of Faith — that statement runs contrary to the school’s nondiscrimination policy.
David French, senior legal counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund, called the ruling “narrow and troubling.”
The court said the “all-comers” policy — which states that every student has a right to join or lead every student group — is constitutional, so long as it is applied to all student groups.
“What makes this decision narrow,” French said, “is that the ‘all-comers’ policy is unique to Hastings.”
At the time of the oral arguments, no other university or college had a similar policy.
What the court did not decide is whether a nondiscrimination policy — one that prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion or sexual orientation, for example –trumps students’ First Amendment rights.
“This is why the case is also troubling,” French said. “The university essentially (rode) roughshod over the free association rights of these students, holding that it was reasonable to require CLS to permit anyone, regardless of its views.”
French also pointed out that the case didn’t end with today’s decision. The Supreme Court sent it back to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to determine whether the “all-comers” policy was evenly applied to other student groups.
French said there is solid evidence that even as the school was throwing CLS off campus, it recognized the Hispanic group La Raza — which translates to “the race” — an organization that limits leadership to only those of “the race.”
In a scathing dissent, Justice Samuel Alito wrote, “This Court does not customarily brush aside a claim of unlawful discrimination with the observation that the effects of the discrimination were really not so bad. We have never before taken the view that a little viewpoint discrimination is acceptable. Nor have we taken this approach in other discrimination cases.
“I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that today’s decision is a serious setback for freedom of expression in this country. Our First Amendment reflects a ‘profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide open.’ Even if the United States is the only nation that shares this commitment to the same extent, I would not change our law to conform to the international norm. I fear that the Court’s decision marks a turn in that direction. Even those who find CLS’s views objectionable should be concerned about the way the group has been treated—by Hastings, the Court of Appeals, and now this court. I can only hope that this decision will turn out to be an aberration.
“Brushing aside inconvenient precedent, the Court arms public educational institutions with a handy weapon for suppressing the speech of unpopular groups.”
Nevertheless, French encouraged Christians not to lose heart.
“The most important thing Christian students and people involved in campus ministries need to realize is that the court did not rule on the policies that are applying to you today,” he said. “If an administrator comes to you and says, ‘Well, the Supreme Court said I can remove you from campus,’ then the administrator is wrong.”
FOR MORE INFORMATION
To learn more about law and the courts.
If you are facing persecution or censorship on a university campus, contact the Alliance Defense Fund.
Christian Legal Society v. Martinez Fact Sheet
Print
