Dean Martinez
Over the past five years or so, the Alliance Defense Fund, in conjunction with the Christian Legal Society, has been poking around, picking fights, hoping to reach Monday’s Supreme Court cert grant in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez (08-1371). Over the coming weeks, I’ll be exploring this story, this case and the principles behind it. It’s an issue near to me, as — while I was a student there — Ohio State University was one of the institutions at which the CLS/ADF team poked.
The issue can appear to be very complex, as it involves claims of overlapping and conflicting interests and rights, from the government to individuals, and from LGBT equality to religious freedom, and from public funding to expressive association.
Despite that, at its most basic elements, my view of the case is relatively simple:
- The University of California Hastings College of Law has a nondiscrimination policy that includes sexual orientation.
- UC-Hastings requires student organizations that wish to receive the financial benefits of official recognition to adhere to that nondiscrimination policy.
- The Christian Legal Society wants to be allowed to discriminate based on sexual orientation.
- Student groups that discriminate shouldn’t be allowed get the funding that comes with formal recognition.
- If the Christian Legal Society wishes to discriminate, it can do so, but it may not do so and receive the financial benefits of being a recognized student organization.
When UC-Hastings was sued by CLS, it affirmed its adherence to its nondiscrimination policy and succeeded in the trial court and on appeal before the Ninth Circuit. (Ohio State, on the other hand, caved when sued, creating a religious exemption to its student organization nondiscrimination policy.)
The district court opinion, which had the caption of Christian Legal Society v. Kane, can be found here (pdf), and the appellate affirmance can be found here (pdf). Truth v Kent School District is a 2008 Ninth Circuit opinion that controlled the CLS affirmance, and the opinion can be found here (pdf).
Now, however, the CLS case will be heard by the Roberts Court.
For a quick take through the basic principles of this case, from someone with whom I more or less agree here, please see Eugene Volokh’s excellent disentanglement of the issues earlier today.
Popularity: 12% [?]
Chris Geidner is the award-winning senior political editor at D.C.'s Metro Weekly and has written for The Atlantic Online, The American Prospect, Advocate.com, Salon and other publications, as well as at his blog, Law Dork. In 2011, he received the Excellence in News Writing Award from the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association for his coverage of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal. Prior to moving to D.C. in 2009, he served as an attorney on the senior staff at the Ohio Attorney General's Office and had earlier worked for a leading Columbus law firm. An extended biography can be found
I’m not that optimistic about this. If I remember correctly, this will be the first gay case before this Court, right? Here’s hoping they nod to the 9th Circuit’s reasoning instead of tipping towards Boy Scouts v. Dale.
Also, I’m sure Hastings appreciates the architectural upgrade, but that’s a picture of SF City Hall.
Well, hell. Sorry, I assumed (yes, I know) that the main picture on the “About Hastings” page was the actual school. I’ve replaced that picture with a picture of the Acting Chancellor and Dean, Leo Martinez, who is the named Defendant in the case.
Thanks for the correction!
It’s the first “everything” case for this court, since they have a new member in Sotomayor.
However, even “Johnny Bob” as I like to call Mr,. Chief Justice, has to follow the law, and it is pretty clear in this case.
I believe CLS is going to lose.