Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Liebert Cassidy Letter

Liebert Cassidy Letter

Ratings: (0)|Views: 25|Likes:
Published by ericafperez

More info:

Published by: ericafperez on Jul 29, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





426874.4 LO130-022
July 15, 2010Molly Dwyer, Clerk of the CourtU.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit95 Seventh StreetSan Francisco, California 94103-1518
Lopez v. Candaele, et al., No. 09-56238
Oral Argument: March 3, 2010 at 9:30 a.m., in Pasadena, CaliforniaDefendants' Citation of Supplemental Authority
Dear Ms. Dwyer:Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(j), Defendants Kelly Candaele
et al.
respectfully cite the following supplemental authority:
Christian Legal Soc. Chapter of the University of California, Hastings v. Martinez,
2010 WL 2555187 (June 28, 2010)(“
”). The Supreme Court held that a law school’s policy of withholdingrecognition to student groups that refuse to admit “all comers” complied with the FirstAmendment.Two points from the case apply here. First, the Court rejected the argument that apolicy can lack viewpoint-neutrality merely because it imposes an incidental burden onsome speakers.
See Hastings
, 2010 WL 2555187, *18.Second, the Court charged federal courts to defer to decisions of educationaladministrators, even in the free speech context and even in higher education.
See id.
, *14(“[W]e have cautioned courts in various contexts to resist ‘substitut[ing] their own notionsof sound educational policy for those of the school authorities which they review.’”)(quoting
 Board of Educ. v. Rowley,
458 U.S. 176, 206 (1982)). The Court concluded:“Hastings' decisions about the character of its student-group program are due
decent respect 
(emphasis added)
; see also id.
, *21 (Stevens, J., concurring) (“The campus is,in fact, a world apart from the public square in numerous respects . . . . [C]ourts shouldrespect universities' judgments and let them manage their own affairs.”). Here, thisprinciple of deference confirms that the District acted appropriately in deciding to use thestatutory language from the Education Code, section 212.5, in its own sexual harassmentpolicy.
Case: 09-56238 07/15/2010 Page: 1 of 2 ID: 7407200 DktEntry: 40

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->