Christian Legal Society v. Martinez

Last updated

Christian Legal Society v. Martinez
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued April 19, 2010
Decided June 28, 2010
Full case nameChristian Legal Society Chapter of the University of California, Hastings College of the Law, aka Hastings Christian Fellowship v. Martinez, et al.
Docket no. 08-1371
Citations561 U.S. 661 ( more )
130 S. Ct. 2971; 177 L. Ed. 2d 838; 2010 U.S. LEXIS 5367
Argument Oral argument
Case history
PriorJudgment for defendants affirmed, Christian Legal Society v. Kane, 319 F. App'x 645 (9th Cir. 2009), cert. granted, 558 U.S. 661(2011).
SubsequentSent to Lower, Christian Legal Society v. Wu, 626 F.3d 483 (9th Cir. 2010)
Holding
The policy of Hastings, which requires student groups to accept all students regardless of their status or beliefs in order to obtain official recognition, is a reasonable, viewpoint-neutral condition on access to the forum; it therefore does not transgress First Amendment limitations. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed and remanded.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens  · Antonin Scalia
Anthony Kennedy  · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg  · Stephen Breyer
Samuel Alito  · Sonia Sotomayor
Case opinions
MajorityGinsburg, joined by Stevens, Kennedy, Breyer, Sotomayor
ConcurrenceStevens
ConcurrenceKennedy
DissentAlito, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Thomas
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. I

Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, 561 U.S. 661 (2010), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld, against a First Amendment 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 status or beliefs in order to obtain recognition. [1]

Contents

Background

Hastings's nondiscrimination policy required that recognized student organizations (RSOs) "'allow any student to participate, become a member, or seek leadership positions in the organization'", regardless of the beliefs or status of that student. [1] In 2004, Christian Legal Society (CLS) applied for RSO status. As an affiliate of the national Christian Legal Society, the group was obliged to adopt bylaws that required "members and officers to sign a 'Statement of Faith' and to conduct their lives in accord with prescribed principles". [1] Those principles included a belief that a marriage between a woman and a man is the only appropriate context for sexual activity; thus, CLS "interprets its bylaws to exclude from affiliation anyone who engages in 'unrepentant homosexual conduct'". In addition, CLS would not admit students whose religious beliefs differed from those set forth in the Statement of Faith. [1]

Hastings denied CLS recognition as a student organization. [2] [3] CLS then 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 freedom of speech, 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. [4] Latham & Watkins decided to represent Hastings pro bono, and former Solicitor General Gregory G. Garre argued the case at the Supreme Court. [5] [6]

Opinion of the Court

CLS argued that Hastings could alter 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, but could not allow a student to be excluded from an organization based on the student's "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's exclusionary rules to determine "whether a student organization cloaked prohibited status exclusion in belief-based garb". The Court offered the example of a hypothetical "Male-Supremacy Club" that forbade a female member from running for its presidency, leaving Hastings to determine whether her election bid was denied because of her sex or because she did not adhere to the doctrine of male 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 not wrong". The Court rejected that distinction, noting that with respect to sexual orientation, the court had "declined to distinguish between status and conduct" and offering a parallel from Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic : [7] "A tax on wearing yarmulkes is a tax on Jews". [1]

The Court's analysis explained how the instant case differed from two earlier cases involving university funding of student groups. In Healy v. James , 408 U.S. 169 (1972), the Court required Central Connecticut State College to recognize a chapter of the Students for a Democratic Society, [8] and in Rosenberger v. University of Virginia (1995), the Court 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 treatment based on that group's purpose (leftist activism in the first case and Christian evangelism in the second). In the instant case, by contrast, the Court held that Hastings sought to treat all student groups equally; the CLS, on the other hand, sought an exemption for their particular membership policies. [10]

Thus, the Court held that the Hastings nondiscrimination policy was a reasonable, viewpoint-neutral restriction that did not violate the First Amendment.

Stevens' concurrence

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 same argument could be made by groups that "may exclude or mistreat Jews, blacks, and women – or those who do not share their contempt for Jews, blacks, and women". [11]

Kennedy's concurrence

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

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 but could discriminate on the basis of conduct or belief. Alito likened the case to Boy Scouts v. Dale , where the "message" of the group was burdened by the forced inclusion of unwanted members.

Subsequent developments

The court's decision, especially Ginsburg's discussion of "status" and "conduct", was promptly cited by plaintiffs in Perry v. Schwarzenegger as Supreme Court precedent that sexual orientation is "an identifiable class", opposing the defense's argument that sexual orientation is "behavioral". [12] [13]

On June 30, 2010, Peter Schmidt wrote in the Chronicle of Higher Education that it was unlikely that the ruling would end 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. [14] Others warned that the decision threatened the rights of on-campus student media organizations. [15]

See also

Related Research Articles

Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case dealing with sexual orientation and state laws. It was the first Supreme Court case to address gay rights since Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), when the Court had held that laws criminalizing sodomy were constitutional.

Boy Scouts of America et al. v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court, decided on June 28, 2000, that held that the constitutional right to freedom of association allowed the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) to exclude a homosexual person from membership in spite of a state law requiring equal treatment of homosexuals in public accommodations. More generally, the court ruled that a private organization such as the BSA may exclude a person from membership when "the presence of that person affects in a significant way the group's ability to advocate public or private viewpoints". In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that opposition to homosexuality is part of BSA's "expressive message" and that allowing homosexuals as adult leaders would interfere with that message.

Christian Legal Society (CLS) is a non-profit Christian organization headquartered in Virginia, United States. The organization consists of lawyers, judges, law professors, and law students. Its members are bound to follow the "commandment of Jesus" and to "seek justice with the love of God."

Freedom of association encompasses both an individual's right to join or leave groups voluntarily, the right of the group to take collective action to pursue the interests of its members, and the right of an association to accept or decline membership based on certain criteria. It can be described as the right of a person coming together with other individuals to collectively express, promote, pursue and/or defend common interests. Freedom of association is both an individual right and a collective right, guaranteed by all modern and democratic legal systems, including the United States Bill of Rights, article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and international law, including articles 20 and 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 22 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work by the International Labour Organization also ensures these rights.

Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), is a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that U.S. state laws criminalizing sodomy between consenting adults are unconstitutional. The Court reaffirmed the concept of a "right to privacy" that earlier cases had found the U.S. Constitution provides, even though it is not explicitly enumerated. It based its ruling on the notions of personal autonomy to define one's own relationships and of American traditions of non-interference with any or all forms of private sexual activities between consenting adults.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Anti-discrimination law</span> Legislation designed to prevent discrimination against particular groups of people

Anti-discrimination law or non-discrimination law refers to legislation designed to prevent discrimination against particular groups of people; these groups are often referred to as protected groups or protected classes. Anti-discrimination laws vary by jurisdiction with regard to the types of discrimination that are prohibited, and also the groups that are protected by that legislation. Commonly, these types of legislation are designed to prevent discrimination in employment, housing, education, and other areas of social life, such as public accommodations. Anti-discrimination law may include protections for groups based on sex, age, race, ethnicity, nationality, disability, mental illness or ability, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity/expression, sex characteristics, religion, creed, or individual political opinions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Beta Upsilon Chi</span> American Christian social fraternity

Beta Upsilon Chi is an American Christian social fraternity. It was founded at the University of Texas at Austin in 1985 and has chartered 29 chapters.

Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic, 506 U.S. 263 (1993) is a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that Section 1985(3) of The Civil Rights Act of 1871 does not provide a federal cause of action against persons obstructing access to abortion clinics. Alexandria Health Clinic, along with several other abortion clinics, sued to prevent Jayne Bray and other anti-abortion protesters from blocking the entrance to clinics in Washington D.C.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBTQ rights in the United States</span>

The rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people in the United States are among the most advanced in the world, with public opinion and jurisprudence changing significantly since the late 1980s.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Diane Wood</span> American judge (born 1950)

Diane Pamela Wood is an American attorney who serves as the director of the American Law Institute and a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School. She previously served as a circuit judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819 (1995), was an opinion by the Supreme Court of the United States regarding whether a state university might, consistent with the First Amendment, withhold from student religious publications funding provided to similar secular student publications. The University of Virginia provided funding to every student organization that met funding-eligibility criteria, which Wide Awake, the student religious publication, fulfilled. The University's defense claimed that denying student activity funding to the religious magazine was necessary to avoid the University's violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

<i>The Koala</i> Satirical college newspaper in California

The Koala is a satirical comedy college newspaper that is distributed on the campuses of the University of California, San Diego (UCSD) and San Diego State University (SDSU). The newspaper's staff occasionally refer to the organization as "The Motherfucking Koala" in its publications and informal constitution.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">National Center for Lesbian Rights</span> American non-profit law firm

The National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) is a non-profit, public interest law firm in the United States that advocates for equitable public policies affecting the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community, provides free legal assistance to LGBT clients and their legal advocates, and conducts community education on LGBT legal issues. It is headquartered in San Francisco with a policy team in Washington, DC. It is the only organization in the United States dedicated to lesbian legal issues, and the largest national lesbian organization in terms of members.

The United States military formerly excluded gay men, bisexuals, and lesbians from service. In 1993, the United States Congress passed, and President Bill Clinton signed, a law instituting the policy commonly referred to as "Don't ask, don't tell" (DADT), which allowed gay, lesbian, and bisexual people to serve as long as they did not reveal their sexual orientation. Although there were isolated instances in which service personnel were met with limited success through lawsuits, efforts to end the ban on openly gay, lesbian, and bisexual people serving either legislatively or through the courts initially proved unsuccessful.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBTQ rights in Arizona</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people in the U.S. state of Arizona may face legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBTQ residents. Same-sex sexual activity is legal in Arizona, and same-sex couples are able to marry and adopt. Nevertheless, the state provides only limited protections against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. Several cities, including Phoenix and Tucson, have enacted ordinances to protect LGBTQ people from unfair discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBTQ rights in Virginia</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people in the U.S. state of Virginia enjoy the same rights as non-LGBTQ people. LGBT rights in the state are a relatively recent occurrence; with most improvements in LGBT rights occurring in the 2000s and 2010s. Same-sex marriage has been legal in Virginia since October 6, 2014, when the U.S. Supreme Court refused to consider an appeal in the case of Bostic v. Rainey. Effective July 1, 2020, there is a state-wide law protecting LGBT persons from discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodations, and credit. The state's hate crime laws also now explicitly include both sexual orientation and gender identity.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBTQ rights in North Dakota</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people in the U.S. state of North Dakota may face some legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBTQ residents. Same-sex sexual activity is legal in North Dakota, and same-sex couples and families headed by same-sex couples are eligible for all of the protections available to opposite-sex married couples; same-sex marriage has been legal since June 2015 as a result of Obergefell v. Hodges. State statutes do not address discrimination on account of sexual orientation or gender identity; however, the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County established that employment discrimination against LGBTQ people is illegal under federal law.

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 U.S. 617 (2018), was a case in the Supreme Court of the United States that dealt with whether owners of public accommodations can refuse certain services based on the First Amendment claims of free speech and free exercise of religion, and therefore be granted an exemption from laws ensuring non-discrimination in public accommodations—in particular, by refusing to provide creative services, such as making a custom wedding cake for the marriage of a gay couple, on the basis of the owner's religious beliefs.

In the United States, a religious freedom bill is a bill that, according to its proponents, allows those with religious objections to oppose LGBT rights in accordance with traditional religious teachings without being punished by the government for doing so. This typically concerns an employee who objects to abortion, euthanasia, same-sex marriage, civil unions, or transgender identity and wishes to avoid situations where they will be expected to put those objections aside. Proponents commonly refer to such proposals as religious liberty or conscience protection.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, 561 U.S. 661 (2010). PD-icon.svg This article incorporates public domain material from this U.S government document.
  2. Liptak, Adam (June 28, 2010), "Justices Rule Against Group That Excludes Gay Students", The New York Times , retrieved July 1, 2010
  3. Schmidt, Peter, "Constitutional Rights Clash in Battle of Law School and Christian Group", The Chronicle of Higher Education , March 28, 2010
  4. Barnes, Robert (April 18, 2010). "Supreme Court to consider case against California law school". Washington Post.
  5. "Court splits sharply on campus Christian argument". Fox News. April 19, 2010.
  6. Sarah Murray (November 3, 2011). "Litigation: drawing the line". Financial Times .
  7. Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic , 506 U.S. 263 (1993).
  8. Healy v. James , 408 U.S. 169 (1972).
  9. Rosenberger v. University of Virginia , 515 U.S. 819 (organization).
  10. Bravin, Jess and Nathan Koppel, "School Can Deny Funding to Group", The Wall Street Journal, June 29, 2010
  11. Barnes, Robert (June 29, 2010), "Justices say school can require student groups to accept all who are interested", The Washington Post , retrieved July 1, 2010
  12. Mauro, Tony (July 1, 2010), "High court's Christian Legal Society ruling already making waves" Archived July 12, 2010, at archive.today , First Amendment Center, retrieved July 1, 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 Chronicle of Higher Education , June 30, 2010
  15. Pritchard, Andrew D. (June 2013). "Come One, Come All Into the Newsroom? Student Publications After Christian Legal Society v. Martinez". Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly . 90 (2): 287–307. doi:10.1177/1077699013482905. S2CID   145671139.