Tag Archives | Christian Legal Society v. Martinez

More on Christian Legal Society v. Martinez

David French, with whom I’ve been having a very enjoyable discussion about this case, posts further on the subject: I want to focus my response on one item [from Volokh’s previous post] — a point that I believe to be absolutely critical not just to the legal analysis but also the equities of the case. […]

Continue Reading 98

Should Access to Public University Property and Funding Be Treated Differently from Access to Other Public Property and Funding?

David French of the Alliance Defense Fund responds further to my posts about Christian Legal Society v. Martinez. I much appreciate David’s thoughtful reactions on this, and I’d like to continue the conversation. Here’s David’s argument slightly abridged: By treating this case as a “government benefits” case, I think Eugene is missing a few vital […]

Continue Reading 12

Christian Legal Society v. Martinez and the Court’s University Speech Decisions

David French writes at National Review Online: I don’t have time to detail Eugene’s argument in all its complexity, but the one sentence summary is: Public universities are not constitutionally compelled to provide government benefits (like room access and student fee funding) to “discriminatory” Christian student organizations…. [Here is] his post’s primary shortcoming: Eugene cites […]

Continue Reading 69

The “Purpose of the Program” Argument and Christian Legal Society v. Martinez

One more item about the Christian Legal Society v. Martinez case: Some people argue that applying nondiscrimination conditions to student religious groups (alongside other groups) as a condition of funding violates the underlying purpose of the benefit program. Universities say they fund and provide space for student groups to “facilitat[e] the free and open exchange […]

Continue Reading 18

Why No-Discrimination-Based-on-Religion Conditions for Government Benefits Aren’t Viewpoint-Discriminatory

David and others have argued that university policies that deny benefits to groups that discriminate based on religion are unconstitutionally based on the groups’ viewpoint, when applied to religious groups. Other groups, the argument goes, are allowed to exclude people who don’t share the group’s ideology: The environmentalist group may exclude anti-environmentalists, and the gun […]

Continue Reading 29

More on Christian Legal Society v. Martinez

In 2008, Eugene, Andy Koppelman, and I appeared on a Federalist Society panel on “Freedom of Speech v. Antidiscrimination Law.”  It so happens that I was asked to address the question raised in Martinez, whether a public university may ban a  student group from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.  My analysis is a […]

Continue Reading 73

No Duty To Subsidize Student Groups’ Discriminatory Officer and Member Selection Decisions

The Court has agreed to hear Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, and to decide whether public universities may open up various student group benefits — funding, access to classrooms, and the like — only to groups that don’t discriminate based on race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, and the like. 1. To begin with, I should […]

Continue Reading 78

Ideological Groups Being Taken Over by Those Hostile to the Underlying Ideology

A commenter (Tim) on an earlier thread raised an important objection to rules that bar religious discrimination by campus groups (including religious groups): Imagine that anyone, regardless of religious belief, were allowed to become voting members of the “Christian Legal Society” or the “Muslim Students’ Association” or any other such group. What would stop people […]

Continue Reading 30

Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Expressive Association / Government Benefits Case

The case is Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, and it could be an important decision on First Amendment law and government benefits more broadly. Its implications would quite likely also extend beyond on-campus student groups and also apply to tax exemptions and various other such schemes. I’ve written about the question in my Freedom of […]

Continue Reading 38

Powered by WordPress. Designed by Woo Themes