More of CLS Decision

 

 Now consider this passage in the CLS case at p. 4: 

"Third, this case fits comfortably within the limited-public-forum category, for CLS, in seeking what is effectively a state subsidy, faces only indirect pressure to modify its membership policies; CLS may exclude any person for any reason if it forgoes the benefits of official recognition. The expressive-association precedents on which CLS relies, in contrast, involved regulations that compelled a group to include unwanted members, with no choice to opt out."

So, if CLS renounced its identity as the "Christian" Legal Society in favor of the "All-Comers" Legal Society, it could [receive its funding for playground safety surfaces]....um...I mean it could receive the generally available funding and access benefits of official recognition. No big deal!

Any cases we read this semester come to mind?

Another way of thinking of this is that CLS has two rights: 1. the right to participate in a limited public forum, and 2. the right of expressive association. And Hasting told them to choose one right or the other but not both.

Is this like a prosecutor saying "if you want the right to counsel you must waive the right to be protected against unreasonable searches and seizures. You choose!" Or "if you wish to continue receiving welfare benefits for the baby you have you must agree to abort the baby you are carrying. You choose."