Business Leaders In Christ v. The University of Iowa
991 F.3d 969
| 8th Cir. | 2021Background
- University of Iowa requires registered student organizations (RSOs) to include a Human Rights nondiscrimination clause in their constitutions to receive campus benefits (funding, trademarks, facilities).
- Business Leaders in Christ (BLinC), a Christian student RSO that requires leaders to affirm its Statement of Faith (including teachings against same-sex sexual relationships), denied an officer role to a gay member who would not agree to live by those beliefs.
- The University investigated, required BLinC to revise its constitution to avoid disqualifying people based on protected status, then revoked BLinC’s RSO status after rejecting BLinC’s revisions; the University nonetheless permitted numerous other RSOs to maintain membership/leadership limits based on protected traits.
- The district court held the University violated BLinC’s First Amendment rights (free speech, expressive association, and free exercise) and entered injunctive relief restoring RSO status, but granted the individual administrators qualified immunity for money damages, concluding the law was not clearly established.
- On appeal, the Eighth Circuit majority reversed the qualified-immunity grant as to BLinC’s free-speech and expressive-association claims (law clearly established) but affirmed qualified immunity as to the free-exercise claim (law not clearly established);
- The court remanded for further proceedings consistent with that disposition; Judge Kobes concurred in part and dissented in part, arguing free-exercise law was also clearly established.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Qualified immunity for free speech/expressive association: was the law "clearly established" that selective enforcement of the Human Rights Policy violated BLinC’s First Amendment rights? | BLinC: Supreme Court and Eighth Circuit precedent (Healy, Widmar, Rosenberger, Martinez, Gerlich) made it clear that viewpoint discrimination in a university limited public forum is prohibited. | Univ. officials: no controlling precedent squarely on point about selective enforcement of a nondiscrimination policy against RSOs; law not definitively settled. | Court: Reversed qualified immunity — law was clearly established that selective, viewpoint-based enforcement in a limited forum violates free speech/association. |
| Qualified immunity for free exercise: was the law "clearly established" that selective enforcement of the Policy violated BLinC’s Free Exercise rights? | BLinC: selective treatment and denial of RSO benefits because of religious viewpoint violated Free Exercise. | Univ. officials: controlling precedent left the question unresolved for Free Exercise in this limited-forum/student-organization context. | Court: Affirmed qualified immunity — Free Exercise violation was not clearly established in these specific circumstances. |
Key Cases Cited
- Christian Legal Soc’y Chapter of the Univ. of Cal. v. Martinez, 561 U.S. 661 (2010) (upheld law school's all-comers policy as viewpoint-neutral restriction in student-organization forum)
- Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819 (1995) (viewpoint discrimination prohibited in university-limited public forums)
- Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263 (1981) (public university may not exclude religious student speech from an otherwise open forum)
- Healy v. James, 408 U.S. 169 (1972) (denial of student-group recognition because of viewpoint violates First Amendment)
- Gerlich v. Leath, 861 F.3d 697 (8th Cir. 2017) (university limited-forum viewpoint-discrimination right was clearly established)
- Employment Div., Dept. of Human Res. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) (Free Exercise Clause does not require exemptions from neutral laws of general applicability)
- Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993) (underinclusive targeting of religious conduct defeats general applicability and triggers strict scrutiny)
- Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, 137 S. Ct. 2012 (2017) (denial of generally available public benefit solely because of religious identity violates Free Exercise)
- Christian Legal Soc. v. Walker, 453 F.3d 853 (7th Cir. 2006) (law school selectively applied nondiscrimination policy against religious group; preliminary relief warranted)
- Alpha Delta Chi–Delta Chapter v. Reed, 648 F.3d 790 (9th Cir. 2011) (nondiscrimination policy constitutional in form but selective enforcement raises First Amendment issues)