On April 19, the Supreme Court will hear arguments that question the right of state law schools to deny recognition to religious student organizations that require members to adhere to strict religious viewpoints.
The case, Christian Legal Society Chapter of University of California, Hastings College of the Law v. Leo P. Martinez, et al., stems from a 2004 incident in which Hastings denied organization status, and thus public funding, to the Christian Legal Society because the group required members to sign a statement of faith.
Consequently, the group reserved the right to discriminate on the basis of religion or sexual orientation.
Those who did not sign the statement of faith or who were gay, lesbian or what the group considered sexually immoral were not granted membership.
If the Supreme Court rules in favor of Hastings, it would be consistent with past precedence that has mandated that public funds and recognition need not be given if an organization’s actions are in violation of public policy, said Ethan Schulman, an attorney for UC Hastings College of the Law.
According to Schulman, the school permitted the society to meet on campus as a non-registered group, but to receive official recognition and funding, they had to comply with the school’s open membership policy.
Although the society had existed at Hastings prior to 2004 under the name the Hastings Christian Fellowship, that year they decided to officially align themselves with the far more restrictive bylaws of the national Christian Legal Society.
Following the adoption of the national bylaws, the chapter sought exemption from the school’s open membership policy but was denied.
A district court in San Francisco then ruled in favor of Hastings, citing reasonable conditions by which the school allowed access to organizational funding and recognition.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals later upheld the district court’s ruling.
More recently, in preparation for this month’s Supreme Court hearings, the UCLA School of Law Christian Legal Society and OUTLaw at UCLA, a group for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender law students, cosponsored a panel of UCLA and Pepperdine law professors on March 17 to educate students about the issues of the case.
“The goal of the event was to discuss the conflicting issues and interests involved in the case rather than try to engage in a traditional debate,” said Andrew Larratt-Smith, co-president of the UCLA Christian Legal Society.
Although such events demonstrate a continued presence for national chapters of the Christian Legal Society, after 2006, when the Hastings chapter was still visible but enjoyed un-official status, the group disappeared from the UC Hastings campus.
“A victory will ensure that universities must respect the right of all groups to choose leaders who agree with the group’s message without interference by university administrators,” said Kimberlee Colby, senior legal counsel for the Christian Legal Society.
“If the lower courts’ rulings are upheld, all groups have lost the right to ensure that their leaders share their core values,” Colby added.
Since the case reached the Supreme Court, 22 Amicus curiae, or friend of the court, briefs have been filed backing the Christian Legal Society, with most arguing that the court should differentiate between discrimination based on “sexual orientation and efforts to criticize immoral conduct.”
Other Amicus curiae briefs claim that failing to recognize the Christian Legal Society is an infringement on the group’s First Amendment rights.
“There is no infringement at all on free speech, they are entirely free to speak on any subject,” Schulman said. “Nothing about Hastings or its policies restricted groups’ views or turned on them. It all had to do with conduct ““ Christian groups could not discriminate gays and lesbians.”