American Muslim

Hastings Christian Fellowship v. Martinez (2010)

Asalaam Alaikum (Peace be with you),

Perhaps all the "West Wing" I have been watching has got me in the mood [and the fact that I am listening to Solicitor General Kagan's confirmation hearing live on CSPAN], but I really want to focus on making this blog more focused on political commentary. Yes, I still plan to include ruminations on religion and identity, but I want to return also to my political science roots. Public Law was my area of specialization in graduate school and I am continually fascinated by the workings of the state and federal courts in the United States - the factors influencing judicial opinions and ideologies, the confirmation process, the politics of nomination, the basis for a federal question, stare decisis (precedent), expansion or constriction of civil liberties, interpretations of the Constitution, etc.

Two days ago, the Supreme Court handed down their decision on whether a public college or university can limit funding to student groups that don't allow all students to become members i.e. Can college funding be denied to student groups or chapters of organizations that restrict membership based on gender, religion, age, ethnicity, sexuality, etc.? Yes, said the Court, in a 5-4 decision on Monday. The case involved the Christian Legal Society Chapter of the University of California at Hastings College of Law. Only students who affirmed the Christian faith were allowed the join; further, members had to sign a "Statement of Faith" that included recognizing that marriage was only between a man and a woman and that sexual conduct, not acceptable by Christian standards [homosexual] was not condoned.

The law school rejected the group's application to be a recognized on the grounds that "the group's bylaws did not comply with Hastings' open-access policy because they excluded students based on religion and sexual orientation." The group sued arguing that Hastings had violated their First Amendment rights of association, speech and exercise of religion. In her majority opinion, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote that the law school had an interest in promoting tolerance on its campus and to achieve its mission the school could set standards for student organizations. According to Erica Perez with California Watch, "Ginsburg wrote that, since registered student organizations receive funding from a mandatory student fee, the university's anti-bias policy ensures that no Hastings student is forced to fund a group that would reject him or her as a member."

In a strongly worded dissent, Justice Samuel Alito said that decision was a "setback" for groups that should be allowed to have certain criteria for membership consistent with their organization's missions.

Personally, this case presents several very good teaching moments that I am looking forward to introducing in the fall semester to stimulate debate:

1. Can an organization set membership criteria for their members?
2. Can a college or university set guidelines about admitting student groups?
3. Is there a difference if the college is public or private?
4. Can a private organization apply to receive university funds and be a chartered organization if its mission differs from that of the university?


Supreme Court Website:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1371.pdf

Cornell University's Legal Information Institute:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-1371.ZD.html