In fact, the Mergens case controls this completely in my view. Interestingly, Roberts was on the SG's brief in that case. I think we know what his views are.

Here's O'Connor's majority that states conclusively FAIR's free speech/association argument is hogwash:

In Widmar v. Vincent, supra, we invalidated, on free speech grounds, a state university regulation that prohibited Page 496 U.S. 226, 235 student use of school facilities "`for purposes of religious worship or religious teaching.'" Id., at 265. In doing so, we held that an "equal access" policy would not violate the Establishment Clause under our decision in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-613 (1971). In particular, we held that such a policy would have a secular purpose, would not have the primary effect of advancing religion, and would not result in excessive entanglement between government and religion. Widmar, 454 U.S., at 271-274. We noted, however, that "[u]niversity students are, of course, young adults. They are less impressionable than younger students and should be able to appreciate that the University's policy is one of neutrality toward religion." Id., at 274, n. 14.

Note that last sentence. This isn't even university students. It's an extremely intelligent, selective group of law school students. Any claims by FAIR that they won't be able to distinguish between the Law School's neutrality toward sexual orientaation and the miltary's is baseless. I expect at least a 7-2 reversal with perhaps Ginsburg and/or Souter dissenting. It's that open and shut in my view, although I 100% respect your view on the case, particularly after you stated your thoughts on Grutter, VMI andd othe aff action cases. I greatly respect that. In this case, however, I must respectfully dissent