By ADAM LIPTAK
New York times
Published: June 28, 2010

WASHINGTON — A public law school did not violate the First Amendment by withdrawing recognition from a Christian student group that excluded gay students, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday in a 5-to-4 decision.

The case, involving a clash between religious freedom and antidiscrimination principles, divided along familiar ideological lines, with the court’s four more liberal members and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy in the majority.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the majority, said it was constitutionally permissible for public institutions of higher education to require recognized student groups to accept all students who wished to participate in them.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., writing for the four dissenters, said the decision represented a triumph for the principle that there is “no freedom for expression that offends prevailing standards of political correctness in our country’s institutions of higher learning.”

The two sides disputed not only the legal principles involved but also just what had happened at Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco, the defendant in the case.

As the majority understood it, the school had merely applied a neutral “all comers” policy to every group that sought official recognition. Recognized groups were entitled to modest financial assistance, use of the school’s communications channels and meeting space, and use of the school’s name and logo, as long as they allowed all students to participate in their activities.

The dissent, by contrast, said the school had enforced a policy forbidding discrimination based on only a few criteria, including sexual orientation, and so had placed a special burden on religious groups.

The student group that brought the suit, Christian Legal Society, or C.L.S., does not allow students to become voting members or to assume leadership positions unless they affirm what the group calls orthodox Christian beliefs and disavow “unrepentant participation in or advocacy of a sexually immoral lifestyle.” Such a lifestyle, the group says, includes “sexual conduct outside of marriage between a man and a woman.”

The group said that either version of the school’s policy would violate the group’s First Amendment rights to free association and religious freedom.

Justice Ginsburg said the justifications the school had offered for the all-comers policy were sufficient to overcome any First Amendment concerns. Among those justifications, she said, were making sure that educational opportunities were available to all students and bringing together people with diverse views.

In returning the case, Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, No. 08-1371, to the lower courts, the majority left open the possibility that the Christian student group might be able to prove that Hastings’s policy was a pretext for antireligious animus.

Justices John Paul Stevens, Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor joined the majority opinion.

In a concurrence, Justice Stevens said groups that “exclude or mistreat Jews, blacks and women” must be tolerated in a free society. But “it need not subsidize them, give them its official imprimatur or grant them equal access to law school facilities.”

In a second concurrence, Justice Kennedy wrote that “a vibrant dialogue is not possible if students wall themselves off from opposing points of view.”

Justice Alito, writing for himself, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas said the decision marked a dark day.

“I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that today’s decision is a serious setback for freedom of expression in this country,” Justice Alito wrote.

“There are religious groups that cannot in good conscience agree in their bylaws that they will admit persons who do not share their faith,” he wrote. “For these groups, the consequence of an accept-all-comers policy is marginalization.”

Share on Facebook

By Lawrence D. Jones|Christian Post Reporter

Disclosing the names and addresses of those who petitioned against the expansion of rights for state-registered domestic partners in Washington does not violate the First Amendment, ruled the United States Supreme Court on Thursday.

“The problem for plaintiffs is that their argument rests almost entirely on the specific harm they say would attend disclosure of the information on the R–71 petition, or on similarly controversial ones,” the court concluded its 8-1 majority opinion.

“Voters care about such issues, some quite deeply – but there is no reason to assume that any burdens imposed by disclosure of typical referendum petitions would be remotely like the burdens plaintiffs fear in this case,” the justices added.

In its request to the Supreme Court, plaintiff Protect Marriage Washington alleged, among other things, that several groups had planned to post online the petition it submitted to challenge Senate Bill 5688, which expanded the rights and responsibilities of state-registered domestic partners – including same-sex domestic partners – in Washington.

The bill, which Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire signed into law in May 2009, prompted Protect Marriage Washington to gather the signatures of more than 137,000 petition supporters, whose names and addresses were consequently recorded.

Though copies of the petition can be requested under the Washington Public Records Acts (PRA), Protect Marriage Washington alleged that several groups planned to encourage other citizens to seek out R–71 petition signers after their names and addresses were posted in searchable form on the Internet, which plaintiffs argue would subject them to threats, harassment, and reprisals.

“Plaintiffs’ main objection is that ‘the strength of the governmental interest’ does not ‘reflect the seriousness of the actual burden on First Amendment rights,’” the Supreme Court noted. “According to plaintiffs, the objective of those seeking disclosure is not to prevent fraud, but to publicly identify signatories and broadcast their political views on the subject of the petition.”

Despite the claims, the court denied Protect Marriage Washington’s request to keep petition signers’ personal information private in all situations.

It did, however, agree with conservative group that people who sign a petition are exercising their First Amendment right to free speech and can act to protect their privacy when supporting traditional marriage.

In its opinion, the Supreme Court allowed Protect Marriage Washington to ask the District Court in Washington for an exemption from publicly reporting the personal information of those who support traditional marriage.

“We are pleased that the Supreme Court has recognized that individuals who support marriage should have the opportunity to protect their personal information from public disclosure,” commented James Bopp, Jr., lead counsel for Protect Marriage Washington.

“While we wish the Court had agreed with us and found that petition signers speaking on any issue should be protected from having personal information disclosed to the public, we are looking forward to returning to Washington and showing the Court that supporters of traditional marriage should have their personal information protected from disclosure,” he added.

The case, Doe v. Reed, will now return to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, where further proceedings will occur.

It is Protect Marriage Washington’s hope that the District Court will prevent the release of the personal information on those who support traditional marriage.

“Supporters of traditional marriage have been subject to death threats, vandalism, and even the loss of their jobs merely for exercising their right to free speech,” Bopp remarked. “We are confident that the District Court will agree that these tactics have no place in the discussion of marriage.”

Share on Facebook