L
Langdell
Guest
In a few weeks, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Christian Legal Society Chapter of University of California, Hastings v. Martinez. This case involves some interesting First Amendment issues.
The Christian Legal Society is a national nondenominational organization of Christian lawyers, law students, law professors, and judges. (Here’s its website.) About five years ago, a group of Christian students at UC-Hastings Law School started a local CLS chapter. However, the Law School has refused to recognize this CLS chapter as a student organization, meaning that the group can’t hold meetings or events in Law School buildings, can’t recruit members or promote its events through Law School email and other messaging systems, and can’t receive any funding from the Law School’s student activities budget.
The reason why the Law School says it won’t recognize the CLS chapter is that the CLS requirements for voting members violate the School’s nondiscrimination policy. Basically, the CLS requires that any voting members and officers of a chapter sign and follow the CLS statement of faith. The statement of faith includes the basic elements of Christian belief (the Trinity, the divinity of Jesus, the redemptive power of His sacrifice on the cross, and the resurrection) and also states that the member will not engage in conduct forbidden by the Decalogue and Paul’s letters (including fornication, adultery, and homosexual acts, according to a CLS addendum to the statement of faith). Anyone and everyone is welcome to participate in CLS events and to be a nonvoting member; only voting members and officers have to abide by the statement of faith.
The School claims that the CLS voting-membership rules violate the School’s nondiscrimination policy regarding student groups. However, the CLS chapter is the only group that has ever been denied recognition by the School, and the School has recognized other student groups that limit voting membership and leadership positions to people with certain beliefs (such as the Democratic and Pro-Life groups on campus) and certain ethnic backgrounds (the Latino group on campus).
After the litigation started, the School claimed for the first time that its nondiscrimination policy requires that every student group admit anybody for any level of membership or position. (As far as I can tell, the School has not yet required the other groups to abide by this interpretation of its policy.)
The CLS Chapter sued the School for violating its First Amendment rights to free speech, freedom of association, and free exercise of religion in a public forum.
The Christian Legal Society is a national nondenominational organization of Christian lawyers, law students, law professors, and judges. (Here’s its website.) About five years ago, a group of Christian students at UC-Hastings Law School started a local CLS chapter. However, the Law School has refused to recognize this CLS chapter as a student organization, meaning that the group can’t hold meetings or events in Law School buildings, can’t recruit members or promote its events through Law School email and other messaging systems, and can’t receive any funding from the Law School’s student activities budget.
The reason why the Law School says it won’t recognize the CLS chapter is that the CLS requirements for voting members violate the School’s nondiscrimination policy. Basically, the CLS requires that any voting members and officers of a chapter sign and follow the CLS statement of faith. The statement of faith includes the basic elements of Christian belief (the Trinity, the divinity of Jesus, the redemptive power of His sacrifice on the cross, and the resurrection) and also states that the member will not engage in conduct forbidden by the Decalogue and Paul’s letters (including fornication, adultery, and homosexual acts, according to a CLS addendum to the statement of faith). Anyone and everyone is welcome to participate in CLS events and to be a nonvoting member; only voting members and officers have to abide by the statement of faith.
The School claims that the CLS voting-membership rules violate the School’s nondiscrimination policy regarding student groups. However, the CLS chapter is the only group that has ever been denied recognition by the School, and the School has recognized other student groups that limit voting membership and leadership positions to people with certain beliefs (such as the Democratic and Pro-Life groups on campus) and certain ethnic backgrounds (the Latino group on campus).
After the litigation started, the School claimed for the first time that its nondiscrimination policy requires that every student group admit anybody for any level of membership or position. (As far as I can tell, the School has not yet required the other groups to abide by this interpretation of its policy.)
The CLS Chapter sued the School for violating its First Amendment rights to free speech, freedom of association, and free exercise of religion in a public forum.
