Last December, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear Christian Legal Society v Martinez, 08-1371. Although this is not an election law case, the opinion will probably influence election law, because it is a case on freedom of association, and that inevitably affects the law on political parties.
The case concerns whether Hastings Law School in San Francisco is violating the U.S. Constitution by requiring student groups that it recognizes to open their doors to membership by any law student at the school. The Christian Legal Society does not wish to have members that disagree with its principles, which include a belief that unmarried individuals should not engage in any sexual activity.
Both sides have recently attracted top-flight legal talent to represent them in the case. Former U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Michael McConnell will argue for the Christian Legal Society. Former Solicitor General Gregory Garre will argue for the law school. See this article. The Christian Legal Society brief is due January 28, and the school’s brief is due March 8.
I have actually had a similar experience with the Christian Legal Society, and this case should have nothing to do with freedom of association.
Chapman University School of Law opened in 1995 and I served on the Student Body while I was there at the beginning. We had the same issues with the CLS, but it was not due to recognition. They wanted our funding (as in this case) and the National Charter violated our Law School charter, thus preventing their ability to receive funds. In order to receive funds, the club had to commit to giving all University funds back should the club disolve. Their national charter would not allow that. Chapman Law School also had a non-discrmination policy that required a club to allow any member interested, so long as they were interested in receiving University funds.
Needless to say, they were not allowed the funds. I have a feeling that this case didn’t come around at that time due to the fact that Chapman University is a very conservative school from Orange County, California.
Respectfully,
William Corteal
Is Hastings a private or public regime ???
If it is public regime, then what about the RELIGION language in the 1st Amendment — put there to END the circa 5,000 years of church-state pro- and anti- stuff ???
Any ANTI-Christian Legal Society somewhere — with some sort of required sex stuff ???
Well, I would tend to side with the right of the private club to set up its own membership rules and exclude accordingly…with some key conditions.
1. The club is open about its rules and does not cry ‘censorship’ everytime someone publically opposes their rules.
2. The club is not necessary for success in the school or the legal profession.
3. Other clubs can just as easily be created.
4. If student money is given to student groups [who then want to exclude students who been forced to subsidize them] i might have a problem.