Tag Archives: ZZ: Christian Legal Society v Martinez

The Alabama Baptist: The Vanderbilt is just one of dozens of cases playing out on campuses all across the country, said David Cortman, senior counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund. “The university is supposed to be the marketplace of ideas, but it ends up being the storefront of censorship,” he said, noting the CLS v. Martinez decision does not apply to private schools.

Baptist Press at OpposingViews.com: The Vanderbilt case has attracted the most media attention in recent months, but it’s just one of dozens of cases playing out on campuses all across the country, said David Cortman, senior counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund. Most adults, who only know what college life was like when they were in school, have no idea how prevalent discrimination against Christians on campus has become, he said.

Leigh Jones at WORLD Magazine | Campus conformity | Leigh Jones | Dec 03, 11: The Alliance Defense Fund, which also argued CLS v. Martinez, plans later this month to ask the high court to consider the California case. Its decision will determine whether religious organizations can maintain their autonomy and their status as official school groups . . . The Vanderbilt case has attracted the most media attention in recent months, but it’s just one of dozens of cases playing out on campuses all across the country, said David Cortman, senior counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund. Most adults, who only know what college life was like when they were in school, have no idea how prevalent discrimination against Christians on campus has become, he said. “The university is supposed to be the marketplace of ideas, but it ends up being the storefront of censorship,” he said. “Rather than being wide open to all viewpoints, including some you may disagree with, [administrators] want you to agree with liberal orthodoxy just to maintain equal status on campus.”

Religion Clause: Recent Articles of Interest: Gregory S. Baylor and Ronald Chen, Did the Supreme Court Properly Decide Christian Legal Society v. Martinez?

Eugene Volokh at The Volokh Conspiracy: The case is Alpha Delta Chi-Delta Chapter v. Reed (9th Cir. Aug. 2); the opinion basically agrees with Justice Stevens’s concurrence in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, which took the same view. The Christian Legal Society majority held only that a policy that recognized groups must take all comers — with some modest exceptions — is constitutional. But the logic of that opinion does suggest that policies which simply require groups not to discriminate based on race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, and so on would likewise be constitutional, if they are applied evenhandedly to all groups.

Marshall, William P., Smith, Christian Legal Society, and Speech-Based Claims for Religious Exemptions from Neutral Laws of General Applicability (May 10, 2011). Cardozo Law Review, Vol. 32, No. 5, 2011; UNC Legal Studies Research Paper No. 1837609. Available at SSRN: …

ADF attorney Heather Gebelin Hacker writing at Speak Up Movement / University: “At the beginning of a new year, there is a valuable opportunity for reflection on the past year and what it means for the future. While 2010 was certainly not without its major victories for free speech, it also suffered some challenges. Here’s a quick look back at developments in ADF’s academic freedom cases in 2010 and what they mean for 2011.”

OneNewsNow: “Alliance Defense Fund attorney [Jordan Lorence] was disappointed that the court chose to affirm a policy [in Martinez] that very few universities have. He said of the handful of law schools that have this policy, most of them require no discrimination based on religion. ‘Groups that have nothing to do with religion — environmentalist groups, homosexual groups, feminist groups, etc. — they are allowed to kick out members who don’t agree with their message,’ said Lorence. ‘But only the religious groups are the ones that are required to accept people who don’t agree with their message.’”

ADF Attorney Casey Mattox writing at Speak Up Movement / University: “[A]s universities consider whether they might attempt to take the approach of UC Hastings and prohibit every student group from excluding anyone from leadership or membership on the basis of any belief or any status without exception, they – and the student government leaders who sometimes myopically encourage such blanket policies – may want to consider the impact such a policy might have on their a cappella singing groups, men’s and women’s choirs, club sports teams and even greek organizations.”

OneNewsNow: “The Christian Legal Society (CLS) is facing another setback in its religious liberty case against the University of California’s Hastings College of the Law, which refused to recognize a chapter of the society because of its Christian beliefs.”

Eugene Volokh writing at The Volokh Conspiracy: “Josh Blackman has video, liveblogging, and my PowerPoint presentation. The panelists were Notre Dame Prof. Rick Garnett, the Alliance Defense Fund’s [Jordan Lorence], Paul Smith (the lawyer in this case for the Hastings gay student group), and me; Judge Bill Pryor of the Eleventh Circuit moderated. I much enjoyed the panel, and hope the audience did, too.”

Americans United for Separation of Church and State / The Wall of Separation: “ADF lawyers, however, just couldn’t let the matter go. They insisted that university officials had been guilty of selective enforcement – in other words, that the school had imposed the ‘no-discrimination’ policy on the CLS chapter while letting other groups get away with it . . . On Wednesday, a federal appeals court tossed out that claim as well. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said it was too late for CLS to raise that claim since the group hadn’t brought it up before.”

“The 9th Circuit on Wednesday refused to consider a Christian student group’s claim that a public law school selectively enforces its nondiscrimination policy, saying the group ‘simply failed to raise this issue the first time around.’”

ADF Attorney Gregory S. Baylor writing at Speak Up Movement / University: “During the Q&A at Cornell, a student asked, ‘given that the Court essentially said that CLS was ‘intolerant,’ isn’t it time for CLS to reconsider its beliefs?’ . . . these questions raise a deeper issue: from whom should the church take its cues? . . . I fear that the church, in all its efforts to be ‘relevant,’ has failed to communicate that it strives to take its cues from God Himself — that its epistomology (way of knowing) often differs from the empiricism and naturalism that dominates the modern mind.”

Jessie Hill, Property and the Public Forum: An Essay on Christian Legal Society V. Martinez (November 10, 2010). Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy, 2010 ; Case Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2010-37. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1706987

“Christian Legal Society v. Martinez is situated at the intersection of various, and arguably conflicting, lines of doctrine. In ultimately holding that the Hastings College of Law could decline to recognize the student chapter of the Christian Legal Society due to the group’s refusal to accept members who did not conform their beliefs and conduct to the principles of CLS (particularly regarding homosexuality),the Supreme Court was required to sort through a tangle of precedents involving free speech limitations in nonpublic fora, religious groups’ rights of equal access to school facilities, and freedom of expressive association.

Perhaps less obviously, however, CLS also stands in relation to Pleasant Grove City v. Summum and Salazar v. Buono, two other recent Roberts Court cases. In CLS, as in Summum and Buono, the Supreme Court turned to property – both as a metaphor and as a doctrinal tool – to resolve difficult and multifaceted constitutional questions. Although the relationship between First Amendment rights and property rights is a long-standing one, the Court seems to have turned to property with a renewed enthusiasm in these three recent cases. And although the property framework may appear to hold the promise of simplicity, neutrality, and avoidance of difficult policy questions, this brief essay, prepared for a special online symposium issue of the Duke Journal of Constitutional Law and Public Policy, argues that it fails to deliver on those promises. Instead, property analysis obscures the complex First Amendment issues behind seemingly easy categorical judgments and grants the government virtually unlimited power to exclude undesired speakers and groups. Notwithstanding the Court’s approach, the crux of the issue is, and has always been, when First Amendment values should overcome the forum owner’s right to exclude. That is a question the Court seems increasingly loath to resolve.”

Daily Iowan: “[Casey Mattox], who served as legal counsel on the Christian Legal Society v. Martinez case, spoke to UI students on Wednesday about First Amendment rights and the importance of students uniting against universities when they infringe upon them. The event was cosponsored by the UI Federalist Society.”

Yahoo: “According to Alliance Defense Fund Legal News, Foothill Elementary School principal Craig Richter used off-duty hours to appear in a video promoting community prayer. A Goleta Union School Board member saw the video and claimed it was against ‘separation of church and state’ for the principal to do so.”

Allan D. Hertzke has an article at Weekly Standard that carries this sub-caption: “How a 1990 decision has come back to haunt us, and how its damage might be undone”

ADF Attorney Gregory S. Baylor writing at Speak Up Movement / University: Today I participated in a panel discussion at Duke Law School regarding the Supreme Court’s decision in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez. The event was sponsored by the Federalist Society. Other participants included Professors John Inazu and Guy-Uriel Charles. About 100 students attended.

William E. Thro and Charles J. Russo, A Serious Setback for Freedom: The Implications of Christian Legal Society v. Martinez (September 26, 2010). Education Law Reporter, 2011. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1682918

“This Article explores the Supreme Court’s decision in Christian Legal Society and its implications. Part I reviews the facts in Christian Legal Society as well as the Opinion of the Court, the two concurrences, and the four Justice dissent. Part II of this Commentary addresses the fundamental change in the Court’s limited-public forum jurisprudence, its evaluation of equality over freedom, and the significant impact that Christian Legal Society has on student organization jurisprudence.”

ADF Attorney David French writing at Speak Up Movement / University: In the aftermath of CLS v. Martinez, we’ve been seeing quite a bit of discussion about ‘deference’ — the idea that courts should give public universities wide room to make its own decisions. As Charlotte Allen so ably noted, a distorted concept of deference has been applied to ratify extreme forms of viewpoint discrimination and is now being used to try to insulate even speech codes from constitutional scrutiny.

C-SPAN: “Panelists talked about the Supreme Court’s recent 5-4 ruling in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez. In that case the court ruled that a public university has the right to withdraw formal recognition of groups that do not adhere to anti-discrimination policies. Participants: [Gregory S. Baylor], Alliance Defense Fund; Kimberlee Wood Colby, Christian Legal Society; Frank Guliuzza, Patrick Henry College; Holly Hollman, Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty; Richard B. Katskee, Assistant Legal Director, Americans United for Separation of Church and State.” (The full video has not yet aired on C-Span as of this posting)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hB8e1c74mA

ADF Attorney Gregory S. Baylor writing at Speak Up Movement / University: “Yes, believe it or not, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has issued a favorable religious freedom decision. On Monday, the court held that World Vision is in fact a religious organization and thus allowed to fire three employees who had repudiated the Christian beliefs they once held.”

ADF Attorney Gregory S. Baylor writing at Speak Up Movement / University: “In a motion filed July 30, 2010, CLS urged the Ninth Circuit to address that issue. On August 9, Hastings and Hastings Outlaw filed their oppositions to CLS’s motion, essentially urging the court to end the case without consideration of the school’s unconstitutionally selective application of its all-comers policy. Yesterday, August 19, CLS filed its reply. We now await the Ninth Circuit’s ruling.”

At the Volokh Conspiracy, Eugene Volokh shares an interesting tidbit from Prof. Michael McConnell who represented CLS in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez. | ADF press release on CLS v. Martinez

OneNewsNow: “[The ACLU] claims a recent Supreme Court ruling in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez allows the district to prohibit the Boy Scouts from using its facilities. The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) has sent a letter to the board, debunking those claims, but legal counsel [Jeremy Tedesco] explains the high court’s decision was very narrow. ‘It decided that a policy that said a private group has to accept everybody who comes to them as a member or leader is constitutional . . . it has no applicability to a traditional non-discrimination policy like the one the school district here has.’”

“This Article focuses on the wider landscape within which the case can be located. It notes that the Court identified two primary frames for analysis – whether the RSO program was a ‘carrot’ or ‘stick’ form of regulation – but ignored other possible frames for the issues and thereby missed an important point about government ‘imprimatur’ and the long shadow of state action that enables private discrimination. It explains why the state action frame is an extremely important baseline for understanding the practical, legal and political dynamics at stake, and suggests a common way of analyzing the constitutionality of conditions on funding and fora that is based on this state action baseline. In the conditions on benefits and fora cases ahead, these observations may offer courts greater insight to the legal and practical complexities involved, as well as a new model for analyzing them.”

“They are judicial theologians . . . ”

California Watch: “The Los Angeles Community College District is trying to use the Hastings ruling to bolster its defense in a speech code case, in which a college professor mocked a student who was speaking about his Christian faith in class . . . [David Hacker], an attorney for Alliance Defense Fund who is representing Jonathan Lopez, responded with a letter of his own, saying the college district had misinterpreted the Hastings ruling.”

“What, in Kagan’s view, is the role of the court in this experiment? When it comes to questions of religious liberty and church-state relations, does she think a justice should show vigilance or deference?”

Inside Higher Ed: “[David French], a senior counsel to the Alliance Defense Fund, said that in the Supreme Court case and the Eastern Michigan ruling, ‘a disturbing trend’ is emerging of ‘what I would call excessive deference to university administrators’ to define limits around ‘the market place of ideas.’ French said that, in contrast to the view that academe should feature ‘a freewheeling exchange of ideas,’ these rulings ‘permit restrictions’ on religious students and groups. And he said that the Eastern Michigan ruling may create a new way for public universities to enforce speech codes — simply by making them into curricular requirements.”

“Religious organizations face a choice between altering their core beliefs or forfeiting privileges enjoyed by others. The liberal state and its institutions face a choice between being faithful to the democratic principle of open access or closing the liberal door to those who are illiberal . . . ”

ADF Attorney Gregory S. Baylor writing at Speak Up Movement / University: “Last week, I had the great pleasure of attending a conference sponsored by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education‘s Campus Freedom Network. Along with Greg Lukianoff (FIRE’s President), Adam Kissel (the Director of FIRE’s Individual Rights Defense Program), and Professor Daphne Patai (a member of FIRE’s board of directors), I participated in a panel discussion entitled, “The Philosophical and Practical Underpinnings of Academic Liberty.” … In my prepared remarks, I observed that utilitarian rationales are not the only ethical arguments for free speech — one can make ‘deontological’ claims as well. People are entitled to speak and people are entitled to receive information, whether or not the effects of the expression are desirable. These entitlements can be called ‘rights,’ and thinkers differ on where these rights come from. I believe that people are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, including the right to liberty — which includes the right to free speech. To be sure, many today reject the claim that rights come from God, but this conception of rights animated the thinking of the Framers.”

National Catholic Register: “The Supreme Court has given a California public law school the go-ahead to defund a Christian student club for restricting membership to Christians willing to abstain from sex until marriage . . . ‘It seems self-evidently nonsensical,’ agreed Greg Baylor, chief counsel of the Alliance Defense Fund. The ruling could do real damage, he told the Register, if other colleges anxious to crack down on free religious expression establish their own all-comers policies . . . ”

Mark R. Weaver writes at the NewarkAdvocate.com: “America was founded as a haven for those fleeing government dictates about religion. The First Amendment was crafted as a mighty shield to protect that refuge. So it can only be called ironic that bureaucrats in California, aided by five Supreme Court justices, are wielding that amendment as a mighty sword to undercut the rights of citizens to organize a private campus group according to their beliefs. If Solicitor General Kagan wants to become Justice Kagan, she’d be wise to agree that it’s time to restore some of the balance between the founders’ dual goals of freedom of religion and freedom from religion. The country is already up in arms with the president and the Congress. And when Americans think all three branches of government are untethered from common sense, an uncommon uprising might be in the works.”

Penna Dexter writes at the Christian Post: “In what kind of a world does a Christian group not have the right to restrict its membership to practicing Christians? According to the United States Supreme Court: in today’s world . . . ADF’s Senior Counsel Jordan Lorence says, the schools that have such a policy often apply it inconsistently. He told reporters, ‘Groups that have nothing to do with religion—environmentalist groups, homosexual groups, feminist groups, etc–they are allowed to kick out members who disagree with their message.’ ADF Counsel Greg Baylor says this decision does place other student groups at risk and there will be more litigation on these non-discrimination policies. It is likely this ruling is not the last word on this subject. ADF’s Lorence says, ‘This isn’t even a loss…in that we’ve lost the issue. It’s that the Supreme Court has basically kicked it down the road for another day.’ But once again ‘non-discrimination’ against homosexual behavior trumps religious freedom. ADF Attorney David French worries that the Supreme Court’s reasoning in this case could mean that the liberties of churchgoing Americans are in danger. ”

Law Professor Robert K. Vischer has this post at Public Discourse: “If one has any doubt about the impoverished state of our public discourse regarding key social concepts such as “diversity” and “discrimination,” look no further than last week’s decision by the Supreme Court in Christian Legal Society (“CLS”) v. Martinez.”

ADF attorney Travis Barham appeared KFUO with Roland Lettner to discuss student rights at graduation ceremonies. This was recorded last week and includes some discussion of the CLS v. Martinez ruling. | MP3 22:04 mins

Shannon P. Duffy writes at the Legal Intelligencer: ust five days after a federal jury handed up its verdict in favor of the local chapter of the Boy Scouts of America in its suit against the city of Philadelphia, a potentially game-changing twist came down from on high when the U.S. Supreme Court announced a decision that could ultimately cause the verdict to be overturned. In court papers filed this week, the city lawyers are arguing that the verdict cannot stand because the Boy Scouts’ theory of the case was rejected by the Supreme Court in its June 28 decision in Christian Legal Society Chapter of University of California v. Martinez. But lawyers for the Scouts filed a response late on Wednesday that said the Martinez decision simply doesn’t apply and that the city’s reliance on it is misguided . . . ”

ADF attorney Greg Baylor appeared on Chris Fabry Live to discuss Christian Legal Society v. Martinez. | mp3 9:53 mins.

Alec Hill, president of Intervarsity Christian Fellowship, writing at Christianity Today: “As president of InterVarsity Christian Fellowship USA—and as a former professor of law—I have concerns about how this decision may impact our 860 chapters and other campus ministries. … Two factors make this decision particularly disconcerting. First, despite the technical narrowness of the holding, the majority opinion contains sweeping language in support of antidiscrimination policies—particularly as related to religious beliefs and sexual orientation—and in affording broad latitude to university administrators. The second major disappointment rests in Justice Kennedy’s concurrence. Considered the swing vote on the court, he compares CLS’s requirement that all members sign its statement of faith with a political loyalty oath. His conclusion—’the era of loyalty oaths is behind us’—is both a disturbing misunderstanding of faith statements and an odd blurring of spiritual and political spheres.”

PBS Religion & Ethics Newsweekly [video at link]: “[GREG BAYLOR] (Attorney, Christian Legal Society): What we’re talking about here is the ability of a group to preserve its message, and it doesn’t make sense for a public university to say to a private student group you have to give up your Christian faith in order to get the same privileges that other groups have.”

Vikram David Amar writing at FindLaw: “While I am obviously pleased (and perhaps a tad surprised) that the Supreme Court embraced the position that [Michael Dorf] expertly crafted, I will attempt, as best I can, to be more detached in the observations I offer in this column. … Observation #1: At the High Court, Doctrine Truly Matters … The choice of the ‘reasonable’ and viewpoint-neutral test –that is, the choice of the appropriate doctrinal box or category on the First Amendment caselaw flowchart — was crucial to resolving the case. If a different box had been chosen, a different (and more stringent) test would have applied, and a different result might very well have obtained. … Observation #2: Concessions Made In the Course of Litigation Matter At the High Court … Observation # 3: Deference to Institutional Judgment Matters to the Justices, and Perhaps Especially So in University Cases.”

ADF Attorney David French writing at Phi Beta Cons: “While I fervently wish CLS v. Martinez had gone the right way, the decision has at least spawned a tremendous burst of impassioned commentary from those who value the freedom of association and understand the importance of the university as a marketplace of ideas. As always, FIRE is one-stop-shopping for those interested in penetrating and persuasive analysis. Minding the Campus has run important pieces by K. C. Johnson and John Leo. Over at the Alliance Defense Fund Academic Freedom File, [Travis Barham] has put together a comprehensive media roundup.”

ADF attorney Greg Baylor appeared on radio to discuss the CLS ruling. | The Michael Medved Show here: MP3 34:55 mins| KWTO Radio with Mary Reichard guest hosting here: MP3 12:29 mins

Christianity Today (see page 2): “[Gregory Baylor] of the Alliance Defense Fund said the constitutional issues at stake are still up for debate. ‘The conflict still exists,’ said Baylor. ‘The Hastings policy actually requires CLS to allow atheists to lead its Bible studies and the College Democrats to accept the election of Republican officers in order for the groups to be recognized on campus. We agree with Justice [Samuel] Alito in his dissent that the Court should have rejected this as absurd.’”

ADF Attorney Gregory S. Baylor writing in The Washington Times: “Groups with unpopular messages are most at risk under Hastings’ policy. Majorities can undermine or even take over small organizations with unpopular messages. Lacking the power to deny leadership positions to individuals who reject their countercultural messages, unpopular groups are perpetually at the mercy of those espousing the dominant viewpoints. Groups with uncontroversial messages usually don’t need the First Amendment, but small and unpopular groups – like theologically conservative Christians at a liberal law school in the city of San Francisco – very much do. Sadly, the court did not provide that First Amendment protection. It held that Hastings could punish CLS for dissenting from campus orthodoxy.”

The New American: “[Gregory S. Baylor] of the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), a legal organization that helped to defend the CLS before the Supreme Court, said that the latest ruling does not settle what he called the ‘core constitutional issue’ of whether non-discrimination policies can compel religious student groups to allow members with divergent beliefs to lead their groups. … ADF’s senior counsel [Jordan Lorence] predicted that there would be plenty more legal action over the issue. ‘It’s not over with and there’s a lot more litigation,’ he said. ‘This isn’t even a loss … in the sense that we’ve lost this issue. It’s that the Supreme Court has basically kicked it down the road for another day.’”

ADF attorney Greg Baylor appeared on several radio shows to discuss the ruling in CLS v. Martinez. | The Hugh Hewitt Show here: MP3 6:19 mins| The Janet Mefferd Show here: MP3 17:34 mins

“The Supreme Court’s ‘Subsidies’” editorial by the Wall Street Journal, full text via Google News: “The Court’s definition of ‘state subsidies,’ meanwhile, is especially pernicious. Government may ‘own’ the roads, but that doesn’t mean it can say citizens can only drive if their associations meet government approval. Just because private schools and churches receive the ‘subsidy’ of tax exemptions doesn’t mean the government can say they must accept all comers. … The issue isn’t whether the Christian legal students were intolerant, but whether society will tolerate the exercise of their own moral values without political harassment.”

Marci A. Hamilton writing at FindLaw: “As the Court rightly recognized, this was not a case about compelled speech or belief, but rather a case about a regulation of conduct that is reasonable, legitimate, and related to the goal of the all-comers policy. Justice John Paul Stevens put it nicely in his concurrence: ‘A free society must tolerate such groups [i.e., those that believe in discriminating against others]. It need not subsidize them, give them its official imprimatur, or grant them equal access to law school facilities.’”

SCOTUSblog: “The Court was cautious in more than one case on Monday. As I explained here, in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, the Court surprised many in holding that public universities can deny recognition and funding to student groups with exclusionary membership requirements. In a poll of SCOTUSblog readers, this case didn’t hold much interest, but I join Tom in believing that it’s actually really compelling and far-reaching. … As I noted when the case was argued, the issue was a tough call, presenting good arguments on both sides. It looks like the Court saw it the same way, deciding five to four in favor of the law school, but cautioning that university policies about recognizing student groups must be neutral and aimed at organizations in general, not targeted at any particular group or type of group.”

John Culhane, Professor of Law, Widener University, writing at 365 Gay: “Imagine that you’re a member of a gay student group in college. You’ve just come out . . . and this is your one safe, comfortable space. One day, there are two new members in the group: Religious fundamentalists who have joined the group in a (doomed) effort to get the members to realize the error of their ways. Should the group be able to exclude them?”

ADF attorney Casey Mattox appeared on CBN News to discuss the CLS v. Martinez ruling. | MP4 1:44 mins

The Observatorium: “What’s the biggest bone of contention among progressive post-modernists? Bring together all their complaints and talking points and distill their essence. What you get is a hatred of non-permissive belief systems. What’s the biggest non-permissive belief system in the United States? Christianity. … [Greg Baylor], senior legal counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund, tells us that, ‘The Hastings policy actually requires CLS to allow atheists to lead its Bible studies and the college Democrats to accept the election of Republican officers in order for the groups to be recognized on campus.’”

The Underground Site: “The Supreme Court issued a ruling recently that allows San Francisco’s Hastings College of Law to force student groups to permit membership even to those who disagree with the group’s vision and mission, the Alliance Defense Fund Media said.”

ADF Attorney Jordan Lorence writing at The Washington Examiner: “UC-Hastings claims that for the last 20 years it has required CLS and all student organizations to accept any student who desires to join under an ‘all comers’ policy. But this is a mirage. Hastings has never truly enforced its ‘all comers’ policy because it concocted the policy in mid-litigation to evade the withering truth that Hastings only required CLS to accept students who disagreed with its mission. The university could not produce any record of its ‘all comers’ policy until it announced it in March 2005 in court documents related to this case.”

ADF attorney Greg Baylor appeared on Fox News to discuss the Supreme Court’s ruling in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez. | MP4 2:24 mins

CCFON: “[David French], senior counsel at the Alliance Defense Fund, warned in his comments on the decision that this could leave unpopular student groups vulnerable to a takeover from those who do not agree with their beliefs.”

Dakota Voice: “[David French] has some helpful light to shed on this odd matter at the National Review. French is a senior counsel at the Alliance Defense Fund and the director of its Center for Academic Freedom, and the ADF was co-counsel for CLS, so he has considerable grasp of the case. He says this decision by the SCOTUS majority ignores an important reality (perhaps all reality?): ‘Distinct student organizations exist at the whim of the majority. If “all comers” can join, then the majority can override the speech of any student group. Thus the true marketplace of ideas exists by the permission (or, more likely, apathy) of the majority.’”

“Underlying the court’s reasoning is a dangerous view of the enormous breadth of government power. In the court’s eyes, students who want to meet in empty classrooms (rooms their tuition and tax dollars pay for) are receiving a government benefit, not exercising a fundamental right. In the court’s eyes, these ‘benefits’ (broadly defined) can be made contingent on forcing citizens to surrender their most basic liberties. … Not only is the court’s decision to equate the defense of fundamental rights with a quest for ‘special rights’ legally suspect, it has a pernicious effect in the public square.”

LifeSiteNews: “Several conservative groups say they consider the decision a major threat. These include the Family Research Council (FRC), which called the outcome ‘a massive defeat for religious freedom.’ … Yet other organizations appeared to disagree that the case would do much damage: the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), which helped defend the Christian group, said that the decision effectively upheld ‘an unusual university policy that forces student groups to allow outsiders who disagree with their beliefs to become leaders and voting members.’ … ADF Senior Legal Counsel [Gregory S. Baylor] added that the decision ‘doesn’t settle the core constitutional issue of whether nondiscrimination policies in general can force religious student groups to allow non-believers to lead their groups.’” | ADF News Release

Charisma News Online: “‘This is the first time in U.S. history where the Supreme Court has actually ruled that gender rights now trump religious rights, which means this is the beginning of the possible coming harassment and persecution of the church because it’s going to be clear that the true church will take a stand only on the Word of God,’ Engle, founder of TheCall prayer movement, said today. … ‘The Hastings policy actually requires CLS to allow atheists to lead its Bible studies and the College Democrats to accept the election of Republican officers in order for the groups to be recognized on campus,’ said [Gregory S. Baylor], an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund who is representing CLS.” | ADF News Release

Baptist Press: “A public university may deny a Christian organization official recognition under an uncommon policy that requires groups to accept all students as members regardless of their beliefs, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday. … David French, senior counsel for Alliance Defense Fund, wrote, ‘There’s no doubt that the decision is disappointing to those who cherish free speech and free association, but it is far more limited than it could have been.’”

San Diego News Network: “‘The court did not adjudicate whether the application of nondiscrimination policies to a religious student group is constitutional,’ [Gregory S. Baylor], senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal organization, told the LAT.” | ADF News Release

Florida Baptist Witness: “[David French], senior counsel for Alliance Defense Fund, wrote, ‘There’s no doubt that the decision is disappointing to those who cherish free speech and free association, but it is far more limited than it could have been.’”

“‘In Christian Legal Society, the Supreme Court definitively held that sexual orientation is not merely behavioral, but rather, that gay and lesbian individuals are an identifiable class,’ wrote Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher partner Theodore Boutrous Jr. in a letter (.pdf) to Chief Judge Vaughn Walker.”

ADF Attorney Travis Barham writing at Speak Up Movement / University: “Over at Patheos, Timothy Dalrymple has posted his interview with David French on the meaning and impact of the Supreme Court’s decision yesterday in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez. In this in-depth interview, David discusses free association precedent that the Supreme Court ignored in yesterday’s opinion. He also highlights just how narrow the ruling actually is, thus correcting many media reports. And since UC-Hastings’ policy is almost unique in the nation, he explains what impact the decision could have on Christian students at other schools, in both the short and long term.”

“So when or if you go to church this weekend, and if you stand up and recite the Apostle’s or Nicene creed, remember that your era is over and new ideas must take their place. Why? Because the Supreme Court says so.”

NY Daily News: “We have many constitutional rights. But we generally aren’t constitutionally entitled to get subsidies for those rights. … Constraints on religious discrimination stem from a judgment about conduct, not about speech: The judgment that treating people worse based on their religion is especially unfair and especially socially corrosive. A ban on religious discrimination but not other kinds of ideological discrimination is thus justified without reference to the content or viewpoint of any group’s speech. Under well-established First Amendment precedents, this makes such a ban content- and viewpoint-neutral.”

All Headline News: “‘This decision doesn’t settle the core constitutional issue of whether nondiscrimination policies in general can force religious student groups to allow non-believers to lead their groups,’ Alliance Defense Fund lawyer [Gregory Baylor], one of several attorneys who represented CLS, said in a statement.” | ADF News Release

AlterNet: “[Gregory Baylor], senior legal counsel at the Alliance Defense Fund, said the ruling ‘doesn’t settle the core constitutional issue of whether nondiscrimination policies in general can force religious student groups to allow non-believers to lead their groups. The conflict still exists.’ In the long run, Baylor said, the decision ‘puts other student groups across the country at risk.’” | ADF News Release

OneNewsNow: “[ADF Attorney Jordan Lorence] says the court’s ruling has not closed the door on the issue. ‘It’s not over with and there’s a lot more litigation,” he remarks. ‘This isn’t even a loss…in the sense that we’ve lost this issue. It’s that the Supreme Court has basically kicked it down the road for another day.’” | ADF Media Clips

WorldNetDaily: “[A] dissent from Justice Samuel Alito said it was the court’s endorsement – no more or less – of viewpoint discrimination against a Christian group that required its leaders to be, well, Christian. … ‘The conflict still exists. This decision doesn’t settle the core constitutional issue of whether nondiscrimination policies in general can force religious student groups to allow non-believers to lead their groups,’ explained senior legal counsel [Gregory S. Baylor] of the Alliance Defense Fund.” | ADF News Release

California Catholic Daily: “‘The conflict still exists,’ said Alliance Defense Fund senior legal counsel [Gregory S. Baylor]. ‘This decision doesn’t settle the core constitutional issue of whether nondiscrimination policies in general can force religious student groups to allow non-believers to lead their groups. Long-term, the decision puts other student groups across the country at risk, and we will continue to fight for their constitutional rights. The Hastings policy actually requires CLS to allow atheists to lead its Bible studies and the College Democrats to accept the election of Republican officers in order for the groups to be recognized on campus. We agree with Justice Alito in his dissent that the court should have rejected this as absurd.’” | ADF News Release | ADF News Release