Christian Legal Society v. Martinez (Hastings Law School case)

This case is currently before the Supreme Court and the decision should be out soon.

Here is a summary of the case prepared by the CLS:

Recent Developments
Oral Argument April 19, 2010: Find the transcript archived here. Christian Legal Society filed its Reply Brief on April 2, 2010. Appendices to the brief are also available: Appendix A and Appendix B. On February 4, 2010, numerous Amici Curiae filed briefs in the U.S. Supreme Court in support of CLS. These briefs are available here. The Brief for Petitoner was filed in the U.S. Supreme Court on January 28, 2010. Click here to download the brief. On December 7, 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court granted CLS's petition for certiorari. Click here for Press Release and quotes.
Summary of Case
The Christian Legal Society (CLS) chapter at the University of California - Hastings College of the Law filed a lawsuit on October 22, 2004, against school officials who denied recognition to the group because the chapter requires its officers and voting members to adhere to the CLS Statement of Faith. This was not the first time a state university had discriminated against CLS (for other examples of this discrimination, click here).
The CLS chapter asked school officials in early September 2004 to exempt the group and other religious student organizations from the religion and sexual orientation portions of the university's nondiscrimination policy. As applied to CLS, this nondiscrimination policy would force the chapter to allow persons who hold beliefs and engage in conduct contrary to the CLS Statement of Faith, which includes a prohibition on extramarital sex, to join as voting members and to run for officer positions. School officials denied this request and stripped the chapter of recognition and the benefits of recognition, including student activity fee funding.
In its lawsuit CLS alleges that UC Hastings' exclusion of its chapter violates, among other constitutional rights, CLS' right of expressive association and CLS' right to be free from viewpoint discrimination.
CLS argues that is a violation of the right of expressive association to force a religious student organization to accept officers and voting members who hold beliefs and engage in conduct in opposition to the group's shared viewpoints, thereby inhibiting the group's ability to define and express its message.
CLS also argues that it is a violation of the right to be free from viewpoint discrimination to impose the above requirement on a religious student organization while permitting every other recognized student organization on campus to limit its officers and voting membership to persons who agree with the group's shared viewpoints.
On cross motions for summary judgment, the district court ruled in favor of defendants, including school officials and Hastings Outlaw, a recognized student organization, on April 2006. CLS appealed this ruling. A panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral argument in this case on March 10, 2009. The panel consisted of Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, Judge Proctor Hug, Jr., and Judge Carlos T. Bea. The panel affirmed the district court's opinion, ruling against CLS in an unpublished disposition on March 17, 2009.
On May 5, 2009, CLS filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court, seeking a reversal of the Ninth Circuit's decision against CLS.
The Christian Legal Society's Center for Law & Religious Freedom and the Alliance Defense Fund represent the CLS chapter, and attorneys Timothy Smith and Stephen Burlingham are serving as local counsel.

And here is a great post from ReligionVlause on the case:

Advocacy Groups React To CLS v. Martinez

Many advocacy groups and interested parties have issued statements on yesterday's Supreme Court decision in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez. Here is a sampling:

• ACLU
• Alliance Defense Fund
• American Center for Law & Justice
• American Jewish Committee
• Americans United for Separation of Church and State
• Baptist Joint Committee
• Becket Fund for Religious Liberty
• Christian Legal Society
• Foundation for Individual Rights in Education
• Hastings College of Law
• Interfaith Alliance
• Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations

Citizens Link suggests that the decision may have limited impact because few if any other schools have an "all-comers" rule for student groups. Most have a rule that bars discrimination on specified grounds, such as race, religion, gender and sexual orientation. The majority avoided passing on the constitutionality of this sort of rule. The Chronicle of Higher Education also reviews reactions to the decision.

And here is an article: Toni M. Massaro, Christian Legal Society v. Martinez: Six Frames, (Arizona Legal Studies Discussion Paper No. 10-27, Aug. 12, 2010).

Garcetti Hypos

Consider two hypos involving Assistant Dean Mary Smith, the Admissions Director at a state university.

Case One

Assistant Dean Smith is asked by Dean Tom Jones to write a description of the school's "diversity policy" for inclusion in the minority admission packet sent to minority students the school wishes to attract. Dean Smith describes the schools commitment to diversity accurately, but proceeds to criticize the policy as amounting to unfair discrimination against non-minority applicants. The packet is sent to prospective minority students, many of whom are offended by Dean Smith's criticism of the program.

Case Two

Dean Smith writes a letter to the editor of the state's largest newspaper accurately describing the school's diversity program and criticizing it as amounting to unfair discrimination against non-minority students. Many readers respond to this article, some of them are upset by the policy's unfair reverse discrimination, some of them critical of Dean Smith for having aired her concerns in a public forum.

In both cases Dean Smith is fired or demoted for expressing her criticism of the school's diversity policy.

Apply the First Amendment.

Interesting Employee Speech Case

From the ReligionClause blog:

The Toledo Blade reports that on Monday a federal lawsuit was filed against the University of Toledo by its former Associate Vice-President for Human Resources, Crystal Dixon. Dixon was fired after she wrote a column for a local newspaper arguing that gays and lesbians are not "civil rights victims." (See prior posting.) The complaint (full text) alleges that "Plaintiff, an African-American woman and sincere practicing Christian, believes that homosexuality is a grave offense against the Law of God and that comparing homosexual activity with the struggles of African-American civil rights victims is absurd and untenable because she believes homosexuality is a lifestyle choice and not an immutable or inherent genetic and biological characteristic...."

The lawsuit alleges that Dixon's column expressed her personal views, and that her firing infringes her 1st Amendment free speech rights. The complaint also claims equal protection violations, arguing that others University personnel have been permitted to speak out on political and social issues without consequences. Richard Thompson of the Thomas More Law Center who represents Dixon said that homosexuals have an "inordinate amount of influence" over University president Lloyd Jacobs. The University claims that Dixon's human resources position was one of special sensitivity, and that her ability to perform that job was undermined by her statements.

Interesting Case Concerning Religious Liberty in Public Schools Settles

Here is a Liberty Counsel press release concerning the settlement of a very interesting case:

"January 29, 2008

School Board Settles Lawsuit By Amending Policy and Accepting Student’s Community Service Hours at Church

Long Beach, CA – The Long Beach District School Board has approved a settlement agreement with Christopher Rand, a high school student who was denied credit for community service hours he completed at his church. Chris has now received full credit for the hours. The district administration also rewrote its community service learning policy to allow students to complete mandatory community service hours at either secular or religious organizations, including churches, on the same terms.

In October 2007, Liberty Counsel filed a lawsuit against the district because Chris’s school refused to grant credit for more than 70 hours of community service, solely because it was performed at Long Beach Alliance Church. He interacted with the children in the church’s programs, answered questions, assisted with crafts and art projects, supervised activity time to help ensure safety, and performed other duties.

After Chris submitted the required documentation regarding his volunteer service, he was denied credit because the district’s prior community service learning policy stated, “Service to your religious community does not count.” If Christopher had given the same service in a secular school or in a nonreligious childcare program, his service would have been credited. Shortly after Liberty Counsel filed suit, the district agreed to award Chris credit for the full 72.5 hours that had previously been rejected.

In addition to giving Chris credit for his community service, the district accepted input from Liberty Counsel in revising its policy to comply with the First Amendment. Under the new policy, religious organizations will receive the same treatment as other nonprofit organizations in terms of the types of community service work that is permitted. Students are expressly allowed to supervise and assist with leading organized children’s activities, such as those performed by Chris. The district also agreed to pay attorney’s fees and costs to Liberty Counsel.

Mathew D. Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, commented: “When community service is a graduation requirement, schools cannot limit service to secular venues. Discrimination against performing community service for religious organizations violates the First Amendment and offends the rich religious heritage that made this country great.”"

Liberty Counsel, by the way is one of the leading public interest law firms in the area of religious liberty and free speech.

For Tomorrow Wednesday June 2

Read through assignment III. 5:

4. Casebook p. 279-298 (Re-read Locke v. Davey Handout 7)

5. Casebook p. 299-306