Hastings v. CLS (I know its been awhile)

Ahh the effects of summer vacation on good intentions....

but I am back, and very excited to continue looking at this case. I couldn't sleep this morning, and since Anna could (after a hard night of teething, thank goodness), I decided to read a little more from my current case (and no, the purpose was not to put me back to sleep).

I finally got past the syllubus to the meat of the opinion. This is good stuff. I know it is good stuff when I don't have to read the paragraphs more than once and I am as glued to the pages as I would be in any popular novel. The fact that the case concerns a law school further adds to the interest because law school was my home for three years. The Christian Legal Society is not so different from organizations I myself joined as a law student. What an exciting time to be a Hastings law student-- at the forefront of an issue that is so intrinsic to the rights described in the First Amendment. I don't care where you stand on this issue, it is the fodder for great conversation and debate, and as a result, my brain is working, my palms are sweating, my heart is racing-- just like the good old days.

At the outset, I can already see that the CLS (Christian Legal Society) made what could be considered a fatal mistake. It stipulated to a fact that it later wanted to dispute. In cross motions for summary judgment, both sides stipulated to the fact that Hastings had an "all-comers" policy-- requiring that any registered student group open eligibility to all students, regardless of belief. And in essence, this is a fairly accurate statement of Hastings policy, but accepting that statement as a fact turned the attention to the constitutionality of Hasting's treatment of CLS, rather than the constitutionality of the policy itself. (CLS wanted to argue that the policy unfairly discriminates against religious groups that center their organization around religious belief). I know it is a small distinction, but one that probably turned the tide of this argument. In fact, the court acknowledges that there are previous pleadings and statements made by Hastings which cast some doubt on whether or not the policy truly is as "viewpoint neutral" as Hastings claims it to be. However, once two parties stipulate to a fact, it becomes a fact for the record that not only trumps previous pleadings, but it no longer becomes an issue for the court to decide. Thus, the court is deciding whether or not the restrictions imposed by CLS are in compliance with Hastings policy, and not on whether or not Hastings policy is constitutional.

Tough love by the Court. I can just see counsel for CLS hanging butting their head against the wall and thinking "why did I stipulate to that."

note to self: don't hand over the trophy before the fight has even begun.

more later!

Second Case: Christian Legal Society v. Martinez

This is just a preliminary post because I have only read 8 pages and they have all been part of the syllabus. This case is 85 pages long, and the opinion, I believe, only takes up 35 pages of that. This was a 5-4 decision, obviously well-fought on either side, and because I have often found myself swayed by the persuasive words of certain justices, I thought it would be beneficial to share my thoughts prior to reading the case in its entirety.

Although I identify myself as a Christian, I have to say that I agree with the Univeristy's decision. Just because I agree with the beliefs of a certain group does not mean that I believe it is inherently wrong to restrict them in certain contexts. I choose my words carefully, because although I believe the University restricted them from a certain amount of school participation, I do not believe the University censored them in any way. They may not have the sponsorship of the University, but they still have the right to gather, to hold activities, and to exclude anyone they want from membership. The underlying principle for me is that I don't think a student should have to pay dues to support a group that it would be prohibited from joining.

I don't agree with homosexual conduct, or really any behavior that transgresses laws of chastisty, but I do believe that people should be free to live as they choose. Sometimes the laws of God are different than the laws of the land. There is a fine line between laws prohibiting the establishment of religion and laws restricting the free exercise of religion. This line often become indistict, and when it does, my religious sensibilities wage war with my more liberal sensibilities.

However, I do support a University's right to restrict university sponsorship to those organizations that allow open membership, as long as there are alternative opportunities for prohibited organizations to form and gather according to their own discretion.

more on that later. I anticipate that my opinions may change by the time I finish with this case