The United States Supreme Court decided not to hear a case today.  Alpha Delta Chi (ADX) v Reed.  But that’s not really news considering that they decide not to hear about 99% of the cases brought to them.  What is news though is that the issue in the case of whether religious groups can chose leaders who share their religious beliefs remains hotly contested on the national level.

If you keep up with the news, you know that universities across the country are singling out religious groups and claiming that it is “discriminatory” for them to choose leaders that share the same religious beliefs.  Like in this case where a Christian sorority and fraternity wanted to be lead by Christians.  I know, you are probably thinking—you are kidding me, right?  Isn’t it just common sense that every church, synagogue and other religious group has the right to be lead by pastors, rabbis, etc. of the same religious persuasion?  I mean, wouldn’t we all be shocked if we went to church on Sunday only to find an avowed atheist in the pulpit?  Therein lies the rub.  This is law, not logic.

What’s even more disturbing, and indicative of the hostility that many public universities display toward religion, is that there is no requirement in the law that they prohibit religious groups from choosing like-minded leaders, only that they may—under certain circumstances—prohibit them.   And those circumstances are being fudged.  What do I mean by that?  Last year the Supreme Court held in CLS v. Martinez, based on a stipulation that all groups were required to accept anyone, that no group could then “discriminate” against anyone.  Sound fair?  Not if you dig a bit deeper.

By way of example, let’s examine that issue in this case, ADX.  The university is claiming that they too–like Martinez–have a so-called “all-comers” policy.  But they exempt all fraternities and sororities from the prohibition on gender discrimination, thus not requiring them to accept all-comers, and that is half of all clubs.  And this doesn’t even take into consideration that in real life student groups choose whomever they want, thereby excluding whomever they don’t want.  So it is really a “some-comers,” or more accurately, an “anyone-we-want-comers” policy.  And last time I checked, religious speech and exercise are protected not once, but twice in the First Amendment.   One would think that would weigh heavily in the discussion.

So the Supreme Court’s decision not to hear this case just ensures that the battle continues.  Universities will continue claiming that they have legal cover to discriminate against religious groups, and religious groups will continue to fight to remain, well, religious.  And it is more important than ever for religious groups to continue fighting for this God-given right to be religious.  As the battle rages on, it becomes more and more likely that the Supreme Court will have to weigh in on the issue at some point.

__________________________________________

ADF will continue the fight for the rights of private student organizations to define their membership and select their leaders without interference or retaliation by state university officials.  Please contact ADF if you are encountering similar problems at your state university.

The Supreme Court let stand the lower court decision upholding San Diego State’s discriminatory exclusion of a Christian fraternity and a Christian sorority from access to the channels of communication with students on campus. In a one sentence order with no comment, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case.  San Diego State prohibited campus Christian organizations from requiring their members and leaders to agree with the organization’s statement of faith, but allowed other student organizations to require members and leaders to agree with the viewpoints the groups advocate.  The Ninth Circuit upheld the San Diego’s State’s requirement as constitutional, and ADF appealed to the Supreme Court.

ADF attorney David Cortman issued the following statement in response to the Supreme Court’s actions:

“Public universities should encourage, not censor, the free exchange of ideas. But for now, the supposed marketplace of ideas at San Diego State University will remain a stronghold for censorship. We wish the Supreme Court would have used this opportunity to make clear that the First Amendment protects the right of student groups to employ belief-based criteria in selecting their members and leaders.”

“Throughout the years of defending its policy, the university did not tell the Democratic club it must be led by a Republican, or the vegetarian club that it must be led by a meat-eater, but it did tell Christian groups that they must allow themselves to be led by atheists. Even its purported, 11th-hour policy change made at the doorstep of the Supreme Court continues to treat religious groups less favorably than many other student groups. When political conformity is placed ahead of the constitutionally protected rights of students, all students–including students of faith–suffer.”

ADF will continue the fight for the rights of private student organizations to define their membership and select their leaders without interference or retaliation by state university officials.  Please contact ADF if you are encountering similar problems at your state university.

The U.S. Supreme Court should announce Monday whether it will hear the ADX v. Reed case from San Diego State.   We have discussed this case before and it involves a bad decision by the Ninth Circuit upholding the decision of San Diego State officials to force a Christian fraternity and sorority on campus to allow non-Christians to join, even though SDSU allows secular student groups to exclude from membership and leadership students who disagree with the groups’ viewpoints.  So that means the student vegetarian club can exclude those who advocate for meat eating and animal hunting, but Christian groups cannot exclude those advocating atheism or Buddhism, etc.

This case is a follow up to the Supreme Court’s disappointing decision in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez in June 2010, in which it upheld an “all comers” policy at UC-Hastings Law School in San Francisco, a policy that forced all student groups to allow all students to join their club.   Late last year, San Diego State tried to subvert our appeal to the Supreme Court by abruptly adopting an all comers policy, even though it has defended its religion-specific policy for years in court.  The Supreme Court should realize its orders list at 10:00 am Eastern Time.  Stay tuned.

A Christian student group trying to form a recognized student organization at University of North Carolina Greensboro (UNCG) recently found out it was not religious.  How did it find this out?  UNCG officials told it so.

The group, Make Up Your Own Mind (MUYOM, for short), is an explicitly Christian group dedicated to promoting its orthodox Christian views and its biblically-based beliefs regarding the sanctity of life and sexual purity.  Its constitution clearly states its religious mission, its multi-point Statement of Faith, and its life-affirming and pro-abstinence views.  And to maintain control over its religious identity and message, it requires its members and leaders to agree with these views.

Despite all this evidence (and more) of its religious character and mission, UNCG told MUYOM it was not a religious group.  The consequences?  MUYOM is denied recognition, which means it cannot access the many avenues of communication available to other recognized groups and vital to meaningful existence on campus, unless it is willing to admit students who disagree with its religious beliefs as members and leaders.  Notably, UNCG does not require this of other belief-based groups, since UNCG’s policies expressly allow such groups to restrict members to students who share the groups’ beliefs, except MUYOM.  This is a blatant violation of the group’s fundamental First Amendment rights.  (And, in case you were wondering, Alliance Defense Fund just filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against UNCG on behalf of the group).

But, constitutionally speaking, what is even more troubling about this case is that UNCG is telling an obviously religious group that it is not religious.  It appears the government knows no bounds.  In recent weeks, we have seen the federal government  force countless religious ministries, organizations, and business owners to violate their religious beliefs by requiring them to fund insurance coverage for abortion-inducing drugs, sterilizations, and contraceptives.  Now, the government is also arrogating to itself the power to decide whether a religious group is actually religious.

Yikes.  Anyone who cares about religious liberty and its continued vitality should care about the right outcome in this case.  Giving the  government the power to determine whether religious groups are “sufficiently religious” to exercise their constitutionally protected rights gives it the power to cancel their rights altogether.

Florida Christian College (FCC) and five of its students filed suit against the State of Florida March 8, challenging their religion-based exclusion from the Florida Resident Access Grant (FRAG) program.  My colleagues and I at the Alliance Defense Fund are privileged to represent them.

Through the FRAG program, the state provides over $2,000 in annual tuition assistance to qualifying students who attend private colleges and universities in the state.  In order to participate, a student must attend a college that has ”a secular purpose.”  Officials with the state Department of Education concluded that FCC lacked “a secular purpose” and excluded the college and its otherwise eligible students from the program.  FCC includes within its educational program “secular” subjects and prepares many of its students for “secular” vocations.

When writing the FRAG statute, the Florida legislature misunderstood the First Amendment’s ban on laws “respecting an establishment of religion.”  Interpreting that language, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that government benefit programs may include religious individuals and organizations as long as (among other things) the programs have “a secular purpose.”   When it adopted the statute governing the FRAG program in 1989, the Florida legislature misunderstood this constitutional rule, erroneously requiring each participating school – rather than the program as a whole itself – to have “a secular purpose.”

Compounding the problem, the Department has not applied the constitutionally erroneous statute consistently, excluding FCC while allowing nine other religious schools and their students to participate:  Clearwater Christian College, Palm Beach Atlantic University, Southeastern University, Warner University, Ave Maria University, Saint Leo University, Bethune-Cookman University, Edward Waters College, and St. Thomas University.  Students at a total of 31 institutions of higher education are eligible.

Revealing yet more irrationality in the Florida student aid system, only two of the approximately 16 student aid program statutes exclude students because of the religious character of the institution they attend or of their course of study.  Indeed, FCC students themselves participate in four programs other than FRAG.  In light of this – and the participation of nine religious schools in the FRAG program — the state plainly lacks any legitimate interest in excluding FCC and its students from FRAG.

FCC has been trying for years to persuade the Florida Department of Education to stop discriminating against its students.  The Department has rejected its effort, even failing to justify or explain its unfair treatment of FCC students – who suffer a $2000 penalty simply for choosing FCC.

In light of the state’s ongoing refusal to right this wrong, attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida on behalf of FCC and FCC students Brittany Betancourt, Katrene DeLoach, Alicia Hoffman, Kelley Reinoehl, and Luke Stamps.  We hope that the lawsuit will prompt the Department to quickly do what it should have done years ago – stop discriminating against students who have chosen a particular religious college.