A chapter of the Christian Legal Society had enjoyed student organization recognition at Hastings College of the Law for many years, but last school year (2004-2005) their application for recognition was turned down because the group became affiliated with, and required to adopt the by-laws of, the national Christian Legal Society. CLS by-laws “deny voting membership or officer positions to anybody who does not subscribe to an orthodox Christian code of beliefs, and exclude gays from membership or officer positions” (“Federal Court Rejects Law School Recognition Suit by Christian Legal Society Chapter”). Hastings still allowed the group to meet on campus, and to advertise meeting times and locations, but, because CLS by-laws violate Hastings’ non-discrimination policy, along with recognition, they were also denied funding.

The Christian Legal Society filed suit against Hastings back in 2004, claiming they violated “the students’ rights of free speech and freedom of religion by requiring all officially recognized student clubs to comply with the school’s nondiscrimination policy.”

On April 17, 2006, United States District Court Judge Jeffrey White ruled that Hastings “did not violate any federal constitutional provisions when it refused to grant official student organization recognition to a chapter of the Christian Legal Society,” reports Arthur Leonard in the May 2006 edition of Lesbian/Gay Law Notes (see page 4).

From Lesbian/Gay Law Notes:

This lawsuit against Hastings is actually just one among many such lawsuits filed around the country in which the national CLS is bringing the “culture wars” to higher education by attempting to persuade the courts that school policies barring anti-gay discrimination are themselves discriminatory against Christian students. CLS argues that the schools are trying to suppress anti-gay arguments on campus, and that anti-discrimination polices are a content-based restriction on speech and association. As part of these culture wars, the national CLS vigorously supports local chapters in litigating over denial of official recognition.

…snip…

CLS argued that the denial of recognition violated its rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution, relying specifically on freedom of speech, freedom of association, free exercise of religion, and equal protection. A year ago the court had granted a defense motion to reject claims of unconstitutional establishment of religion and violation of due process, and had required CLS to refine its equal protection claim in an amended complaint. The April 17 ruling is a final decision on the merits, subject to a likely appeal by CLS.

Read more on Judge White’s decision here.