Alpha Delta Chi-Delta Chapter v. Reed
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 15876
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Plaintiffs Alpha Delta Chi and Alpha Gamma Omega claim San Diego State University (SDSU) denied official recognition due to their religious membership requirements.
- SDSU requires recognized student organizations to adhere to a nondiscrimination policy prohibiting discrimination on listed bases, including religion.
- Official recognition provides benefits (funding, use of name/logo, space, publicity, event participation) and access to councils; denial limits these benefits.
- Other SDSU groups have been granted recognition despite membership criteria that appear to violate the policy, and plaintiffs allege selective enforcement.
- Plaintiffs sue under the First and Fourteenth Amendments; district court granted summary judgment for defendants on all counts, which plaintiffs appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SDSU's nondiscrimination policy in a limited public forum is reasonable and viewpoint neutral. | SDSU singles out religious groups, burdening expressive association and speech. | Policy serves anti-discrimination goals and does not target a viewpoint; it's reasonable for the forum. | Policy is reasonable and viewpoint neutral as written. |
| Whether SDSU's nondiscrimination policy, as applied, is selectively enforced against plaintiffs due to religion. | Evidence shows some groups are exempt from the policy while plaintiffs are not. | Exemptions, if any, are not clearly explained; record insufficient to prove selective enforcement. | Triable issue of fact as to selective enforcement; remand. |
| Whether the policy violates the Free Exercise and Equal Protection Clauses due to potential exemptions. | Exemptions for other groups while denying to plaintiffs burden religious rights. | Policy is generally applicable and neutral; any burden on religion is incidental. | Triable issues remain; remand to determine differential treatment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Truth v. Kent School District, 542 F.3d 634 (9th Cir. 2008) (neutral, content/viewpoint-neutral nondiscrimination policy; limited forum analysis)
- Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609 (Sup. Ct. 1984) (anti-discrimination law as neutral to content; access benefits)
- Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian & Bisex. Grp. of Boston, 515 U.S. 557 (Sup. Ct. 1995) (equal access and discrimination principles in public amenities)
- Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free Sch. Dist., 508 U.S. 384 (Sup. Ct. 1993) (designated public forum; non-discriminatory access restrictions)
- Perry Educ. Ass'n v. Perry Local Educators' Ass'n, 460 U.S. 37 (Sup. Ct. 1983) (viewpoint neutrality in public forum regulation)
- Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (Sup. Ct. 1989) (content-neutral restrictions must be reasonably tailored to forum purpose)
- Hazelwood School Dist. v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (Sup. Ct. 1988) (school speech and forum purposes in educational settings)
- Christian Legal Soc'y v. Martinez, 130 S. Ct. 2971 (2010) (limited public forum analysis for student organizations; all-comers policy not required)