Tag Archives: ZZ: Christian Legal Society v Martinez

UPI:  ”Last week, the justices agreed to hear and decide a separate dispute between a San Francisco law school and the Christian Legal Society. The case pits the law-driven obligation of a school, a public entity, to ban discrimination against gays and lesbians and the right of a religious student group to follow biblical condemnation of homosexual activity.”

Law Professor Eugene Volokh has written this response to ADF attorney David French. It concludes: “So whether the matter arises as to funding or room access at public universities, or funding or room access in other government-owned institutions, the result is the same: The First Amendment doesn’t stop the government from making such benefits available only to groups that don’t discriminate based on race, religion, sexual orientation, and the like.”

Eugene Volokh writing at The Volokh Conspiracy: “As I argued in my law review article on the freedom of expressive association and government subsidies, the test for content discrimination is whether a rule is justified with reference to the content of the speaker’s speech. A no-religious-discrimination condition is likely not justified by the content of the groups’ speech. Rather, it’s justified by a judgment that discrimination against prospective group members based on their religions is less proper than discrimination based on their other ideologies.”

Daily Iowan: “The clause has generated controversy across the country and at the UI . . . The decision will affect all chapters . . . ‘It’s completely unreasonable — and unconstitutional — for a public university to disrupt the purposes of private student groups by forcing them to accept as members and officers those who oppose the very ideas they advocate,’ Gregory Baylor, a lawyer with the Alliance Defense Fund Center for Academic Freedom, said in a press release.”

Greg Baylor of the Alliance Defense Fund, Professor Vikram Amar of the UC Davis School of Law, and Ethan P. Schulman of Crowell and Moring appeared on KQED Public Radio in San Francisco to discuss this: U.S. Supreme Court agrees to hear lawsuit against UC-Hastings.

The MP3 runs approximately 51 minutes.

ADF attorney Jordan Lorence appeared on the Hugh Hewitt Show to discuss this: U.S. Supreme Court agrees to hear lawsuit against UC-Hastings.

The MP3 runs just over 7 minutes.

Free Speech & Election Law: Freedom of Speech vs. Anti-Discrimination Laws
Prof. David Bernstein, Prof. Andrew Koppelman, Prof. Kenneth L. Marcus, Prof. Eugene Volokh, Moderator: Prof. Lillian R. BeVier, 31 N.C. Cent. L. Rev. 207 (2009)

“. . . But gay students aren’t allowed to exclude Christians who have conservative views on sexuality, or Christians aren’t allowed to exclude gay rights activists. Given that the right of expressive association is implicated, so there is a First Amendment interest here, then the university is engaging in viewpoint discrimination. And I think in that case, the student group would have a very plausible and hopefully winning argument before the courts that they cannot be denied funding for exercising their expressive association rights when other groups are permitted to decide who their members and officers should be.”

Eugene Volokh writes at the Volokh Conspiracy: “To begin with, I should say that I agree with the Court’s Boy Scouts v. Dale decision: Private groups often do have the First Amendment right to discriminate in choosing their leaders (and their members, though Dale didn’t focus on that), when barring such discrimination would interfere with the groups’ ability to spread their message . . . But the question is not just whether the groups have a constitutional right to expressive association — it’s whether the government has a constitutional obligation to support this right. And there, I think, the answer is no.”

David French responds at the National Review Phi Beta Cons Blog: “I think Eugene’s key flaw is to treat the university environment and university student-organization system as essentially like any other government program, when they most assuredly are not. The Healy court got this . . . ”

Christian Post: “‘Christian students have the right to gather as Christians for a common purpose and around shared beliefs,’ added ADF Senior Legal Counsel Gregory S. Baylor with the ADF Center for Academic Freedom. ‘It’s completely unreasonable – and unconstitutional – for a public university to disrupt the purposes of private student groups by forcing them to accept as members and officers those who oppose the very ideas they advocate.’”

CitizenLink: “The U.S. Supreme Court will soon decide the constitutionality of a non-discrimination policy at UC Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco . . . The Alliance Defense Fund is representing the students in the case.”

Joseph Martins writes at the Center for Academic Freedom Blog: “As the Supreme Court has repeatedly held, public universities—like all government entities—need to give private organizations a wide berth for the exercise of First Amendment freedoms, rather than looking for ways to encroach as far as the Constitution will technically permit.”

Greg Baylor writes at the ADF Center for Academic Freedom Blog: “More broadly, the freedom of all religious groups – not just campus organizations – to associate around shared religious commitment is under attack. For example, the ACLU and its allies are working to exclude faith-based social service providers from federally funded programs on the ground that they ‘discriminate’ on the basis of religion and ‘sexual orientation.’”

FIRE: “Martinez is possibly the most important case concerning FIRE’s core issues to come before the Supreme Court in our decade of existence, and Torch readers will be hearing much more about it in the weeks and months to come. In the meantime, check out initial reactions from UCLA Law professor and noted blogger Eugene Volokh and Alliance Defense Fund Senior Counsel and former FIRE President David French.”

Thomas Berg at Mirror of Justice: “See the press release from CLS and the Alliance Defense Fund. It is excellent news for organizational freedom that the Court is willing to look at overturning the Ninth Circuit decision in this case.”

David French, Director of the ADF Center for Academic Freedom, writing at National Review’s Phi Beta Cons blog: “At campus after campus, administrators have ‘derecognized’ student groups, and perhaps no student First Amendment controversy has spawned more litigation. A quick survey of ADF Center for Academic Freedom and FIRE cases demonstrates how dominant this issue has been . . . This morning, the Supreme Court announced its plans to step in. It granted the Christian Legal Society’s cert petition and will hear the group’s appeal of the Ninth Circuit’s ruling.”

Associated Press: “The Supreme Court said Monday it will decide whether a California law school must force a Christian group to admit gays, lesbians and nonbelievers to gain stature as an official campus organization.”

“The U.S. Supreme Court Monday agreed to decide whether a public university can refuse to recognize a religious student group because the group requires its leaders to share its religious beliefs.”