Christian Legal Society v. Martinez

Last updated
Christian Legal Society v. Martinez
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
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

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 five to four 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 organization of Christian lawyers, judges, law professors, and law students. Its members profess to follow the "commandment of Jesus" 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), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that sanctions of criminal punishment for those who commit sodomy are unconstitutional. The Court reaffirmed the concept of a "right to privacy" that earlier cases, such as Roe v. Wade, had found the U.S. Constitution provides, even though it is not explicitly enumerated. The Court based its ruling on the notions of personal autonomy to define one's own relationships and of American traditions of non-interference with private sexual decisions between consenting adults.

Anti-discrimination law 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.

Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States struck down both a state statute denying funding for education of undocumented immigrant children in the United States and a municipal school district's attempt to charge an annual $1,000 tuition fee for each student to compensate for lost state funding. The Court found that any state restriction imposed on the rights afforded to children based on their immigration status must be examined under a rational basis standard to determine whether it furthers a substantial government interest.

LGBT rights in the United States

Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights in the United States have increased significantly over time, and are socially liberal relative to most other nations. However, LGBT people in the U.S. may face some legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBT residents. Until 1962, all 50 states criminalized same-sex sexual activity, but by 2003 all remaining laws against same-sex sexual activity had been invalidated. Beginning with Massachusetts in 2004, LGBT Americans had won the right to marry in all 50 states by 2015. Additionally, in many states and municipalities, LGBT Americans are explicitly protected from discrimination in employment, housing, and access to public accommodations. However, in 2022, more than 300 bills have been introduced or passed in 36 states to restrict the rights of LGBT people.

Diane Wood United States federal judge

Diane Pamela Wood is an American attorney and jurist who serves as a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, and a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School.

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 of the religious magazine was necessary to avoid the University's violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

<i>The Koala</i>

The Koala is a satirical comedy college paper. In its current form, it exists as two unaffiliated publications, with one primarily distributed quarterly on the campus of University of California San Diego, and monthly on the campus of San Diego State University. The publication at UCSD was one of a handful of campus newspapers partly or entirely funded by the Associated Students of UCSD, until a decision by AS UCSD to defund all 13 student media outlets. The paper still exists as a registered student organization. SDSU's branch of The Koala at one point operated within SDSU Associated Students as a Recognized Student Organization (RSO) until that status was revoked in 2007. The original branch of The Koala was founded at UCSD in 1982, but the details of its origins are uncertain. The composition of the paper consists of artwork, articles, personals, and lists similar to David Letterman's Top Ten List. The Koala's standing protocol when giving interviews to commercial media of any sort is that no statement can be given until they are furnished with beer from the interviewing entity. Exceptions are made for student media as a matter of courtesy.Therefore, it does give an insight into the live of a Koala, but does butify the situation as well.

LGBT rights in Botswana

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons in Botswana may face legal issues not experienced by non-LGBT citizens. Both female and male same-sex sexual acts have been legal in Botswana since 11 June 2019 after a unanimous ruling by the High Court of Botswana. Despite an appeal by the government, the ruling was upheld by the Botswana Court of Appeal on 29 November 2021.

National Center for Lesbian Rights 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.

LGBT rights in Ohio

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons in the U.S. state of Ohio may face some legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBT residents. Same-sex sexual activity is legal in Ohio, and same-sex marriage has been legally recognized since June 2015 as a result of Obergefell v. Hodges. Ohio statutes do not address discrimination on account of sexual orientation and gender identity; however, the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County established that employment discrimination against LGBT people is illegal in 2020. In addition, a number of Ohio cities have passed anti-discrimination ordinances providing protections in housing and public accommodations. Conversion therapy is also banned in a number of cities. In December 2020, a federal judge invalidated a law banning sex changes on an individual's birth certificate within Ohio.

Hollingsworth v. Perry was a series of United States federal court cases that re-legalized same-sex marriage in the state of California. The case began in 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, which found that banning same-sex marriage violates equal protection under the law. This decision overturned ballot initiative Proposition 8, which had banned same-sex marriage. After the State of California refused to defend Proposition 8, the official sponsors of Proposition 8 intervened and appealed to the Supreme Court. The case was litigated during the governorships of both Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jerry Brown, and was thus known as Perry v. Schwarzenegger and Perry v. Brown, respectively. As Hollingsworth v. Perry, it eventually reached the United States Supreme Court, which held that, in line with prior precedent, the official sponsors of a ballot initiative measure did not have Article III standing to appeal an adverse federal court ruling when the state refused to do so.

LGBT rights in Georgia (U.S. state)

LGBT residents in the U.S. state of Georgia enjoy most of the same rights and liberties as non-LGBT Georgians. LGBT rights in the state have been a recent occurrence, with most improvements occurring from the 2010s onward. Same-sex sexual activity has been legal since 1998, and same-sex marriage has been legal since 2015. In addition, the state's largest city Atlanta, has a vibrant LGBT community and holds the biggest Pride parade in the Southeast. The state's hate crime laws, effective since June 26, 2020, explicitly include sexual orientation.

LGBT rights in Texas

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people in Texas face some legal and social challenges not faced by other people. Same-sex sexual activity was decriminalized in the state in 2003 by the Lawrence v. Texas ruling. On June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled bans on same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional in Obergefell v. Hodges. Texas has a hate crime statute that strengthens penalties for certain crimes motivated by a victim's sexual orientation, although it is rarely invoked. Gender identity is not included in the hate crime law. Even though federal law prohibits employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, there is no statewide law banning anti-LGBT discrimination. However, some localities in Texas have ordinances that provide a variety of legal protections and benefits to LGBT people.

LGBT rights in Virginia

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons in the United States state of Virginia enjoy the same rights as non-LGBT persons. LGBT rights in the state are a 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 since July 1, 2020, there is a statewide law protecting LGBT persons from discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodations, and credit. The state's hate crime laws effective since July 1, 2020, now explicitly include both sexual orientation and gender identity.

LGBT rights in North Dakota

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons in the U.S. state of North Dakota may face some legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBT 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 LGBT people is illegal under federal law.

LGBT rights in Kentucky

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons in the U.S. commonwealth of Kentucky have most of the same rights as non-LGBT persons have, but still face some legal challenges not experienced by other people. Same-sex sexual activity is legal in Kentucky. Same-sex couples and families headed by same-sex couples are not eligible for all of the protections available to opposite-sex married couples. On February 12, 2014, a federal judge ruled that the state must recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions, but the ruling was put on hold pending review by the Sixth Circuit. Same sex-marriage is now legal in the state under the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges. The decision, which struck down Kentucky's statutory and constitutional bans on same-sex marriages, and all other same sex marriage bans elsewhere in the country, was handed down on June 26, 2015.

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.


This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.