October Term 2009 · Docket 08-1371

Can a law school deny funding to a student group that restricts membership by belief?

Christian Legal Society argues Hastings violated free speech by requiring all-comers policies. Hastings argues it may limit funding to groups that admit all students.

Official caption
Christian Legal Soc. Chapter of Univ. of Cal., Hastings College of Law v. Martinez
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Michael McConnell argued that Hastings' policy allows non-believers to lead Bible studies.

    He claimed the policy is absurd and applies to the law school itself.

    Paul Garre argued both lower courts decided the case on the all-comers premise.

    He stated this premise was not disputed in the petition for certiorari.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

Christian Legal Society seeks to keep its exclusive membership rules. Hastings wants to enforce its all-comers policy for funded groups.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on April 19, 2010.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

Christian Legal Society wants to retain its exclusive membership rules while keeping school funding.

Hastings wants to enforce its all-comers policy as a condition for receiving school funding.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Christian Legal Society argues Hastings violated free speech by barring them from its forum for speech.

Hastings argues it may reserve funding and benefits for groups that choose to admit all students.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Kennedy asked if Hastings treats CLS differently than other political clubs.

Justice Sotomayor asked if the exception applies only to religious groups or all discrimination types.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines the limits of student group funding. It determines whether schools can condition benefits on open membership policies.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON