360 F. Supp. 3d 885
S.D. Iowa2019Background
- Business Leaders in Christ (BLinC), a religious student group at the University of Iowa, required leaders to affirm and live by a Statement of Faith opposing same-sex sexual relationships; BLinC was an RSO (Registered Student Organization).
- A student (Miller) who identified as gay was denied leadership; he filed a complaint asserting discrimination based on sexual orientation; University investigators concluded BLinC violated the Human Rights Policy and sought constitutionally neutral revisions.
- BLinC revised its constitution to add a "Doctrine of Personal Integrity" and formalize leader affirmations; the University (Nelson, Baker, Redington) rejected the revisions and revoked BLinC’s RSO status for noncompliance with the Human Rights Policy.
- The University enforces a Human Rights Policy requiring equal access irrespective of protected characteristics, but the record showed selective application: many RSOs (religious groups, affinity groups) retained leadership or membership restrictions in practice or by exception.
- BLinC sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 asserting violations of Free Speech, Expressive Association, Free Exercise, Ministerial/Internal Autonomy (Religion Clauses), plus other state/federal claims; the district court granted preliminary relief and later resolved cross-motions for summary judgment.
- The court held the University’s selective enforcement constituted viewpoint discrimination and triggered strict scrutiny; it granted BLinC summary judgment on free speech, expressive association, and free exercise claims, awarded $1 nominal damages, and entered a permanent injunction limiting enforcement of the Human Rights Policy against BLinC; ministerial-exception claims were denied; individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity for money damages but not injunctive relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether University action violated BLinC's free speech / expressive association rights in a limited public forum by selectively applying Human Rights Policy | University recognition created a limited public forum; selective enforcement suppressed BLinC's viewpoint and forced leaders hostile to its message | Policy is reasonable and viewpoint neutral on its face; enforcement differences due to oversight or mission-based exceptions | Court: selective application amounted to viewpoint discrimination; strict scrutiny applies; Plaintiff wins on free speech and association claims |
| Whether University violated Free Exercise by selectively enforcing a neutral policy and denying religious exemptions | Selective enforcement reflects negative judgment of BLinC's beliefs; policy not generally applicable; strict scrutiny required | Human Rights Policy is a neutral, generally applicable nondiscrimination rule and permissible | Court: selective exemptions existed; strict scrutiny applies; Plaintiff wins on free exercise claim |
| Whether ministerial-exception / internal-autonomy protects BLinC from University's actions | BLinC contends ministerial-exception bars government interference with its leader selection | Defendants treat revocation as neutral policy enforcement tied to forum requirements, not internal employment dispute | Court: Hosanna-Tabor does not extend to this context; ministerial-exception claim denied |
| Whether injunction and nominal damages are appropriate remedies | Seeks permanent injunction barring enforcement against BLinC and nominal damages for First Amendment violation | University resists on policy and enforcement grounds | Court: awards $1 nominal damages and permanent injunction (with conditions) because all injunctive factors favor BLinC |
| Whether individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity for damages | Plaintiffs seek damages from Nelson, Baker, Redington | Defendants claim qualified immunity because law was not clearly established for selective application in this university context | Court: qualified immunity granted for money damages (law not "beyond debate"); denied only as to injunctive relief claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of the Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819 (1995) (viewpoint discrimination in limited public forum impermissible)
- Christian Legal Soc'y v. Martinez, 561 U.S. 661 (2010) (upholding viewpoint-neutral all‑comers policy in university forum)
- Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993) (selective exemptions from neutral law can trigger strict scrutiny)
- Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & Sch. v. EEOC, 565 U.S. 171 (2012) (ministerial exception bars certain employment suits but limited in scope)
- McCullen v. Coakley, 573 U.S. 464 (2014) (viewpoint discrimination subject to strict scrutiny)
- Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263 (1981) (forum analysis for student group access)
- Employment Div. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) (neutral, generally applicable laws do not trigger strict scrutiny)
- Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Group of Boston, 515 U.S. 557 (1995) (government may not compel or punish expression to promote an approved message)
- Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609 (1984) (nondiscrimination laws serve compelling interests)
- Knox v. SEIU, Local 1000, 567 U.S. 298 (2012) (associational rights and group expression)