Intervarsity Christian Fellows v. University of Iowa
5 F.4th 855
| 8th Cir. | 2021Background
- The University of Iowa registers student organizations (RSOs) and requires compliance with a Human Rights Policy prohibiting discrimination on listed grounds; RSOs get campus benefits when registered.
- Historically the University allowed many RSOs (religious, Greek, racial, ideological, veteran, etc.) to limit leadership or membership by belief, sex, race, veteran status, or other protected traits.
- After a 2017 complaint against Business Leaders in Christ (BLinC), the University reviewed RSO constitutions, prioritizing religious groups, and deregistered several groups for requiring leaders to affirm statements of faith, including InterVarsity Graduate Christian Fellowship.
- InterVarsity admits membership is open to all students but requires leaders to affirm a statement of Christian faith; the University rejected proposed softer language and deregistered the group, causing loss of members and harms to the group.
- The district court granted InterVarsity summary judgment on free speech, free association, and free exercise claims and denied qualified immunity to individual administrators; the University appealed and the Eighth Circuit affirmed as to the First Amendment violations and denial of qualified immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether selectively enforcing the Human Rights Policy against InterVarsity violated the First Amendment (free speech/association) | University targeted InterVarsity based on viewpoint by stripping RSO status for leadership faith requirement despite permitting similar restrictions elsewhere | Policy is neutral on its face and applied to enforce nondiscrimination | Yes. Selective enforcement against InterVarsity was viewpoint discrimination in a limited public forum and violated the First Amendment |
| Whether the University’s action could survive strict scrutiny | InterVarsity: no compelling interest shown in singling out InterVarsity and deregistration was not narrowly tailored | University: compelling interest in preventing discrimination on campus | Court: strict scrutiny applied; University failed to show a compelling interest narrowly tailored (no actual harm and no less-restrictive alternatives) |
| Whether individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity for their deregistration decisions | InterVarsity: longstanding precedent made viewpoint discrimination in campus forums clearly established; officials should have known | Defendants: law not clearly established; reasonably plausible tension between anti-discrimination enforcement and First Amendment protections | Denied. Under Eighth Circuit precedent the unlawfulness was clearly established and qualified immunity does not apply |
| Whether the BLinC preliminary injunction order itself establishes clearly established law for qualified immunity | InterVarsity: the BLinC order put administrators on notice of constitutional constraints | Defendants: a district-court preliminary injunction is not binding precedent for clearly established law | Court: did not treat BLinC preliminary injunction as binding precedent but relied on Eighth Circuit decision in BLinC II and Supreme Court precedents to find the law clearly established |
Key Cases Cited
- Christian Legal Soc’y Chapter of the Univ. of Cal., Hastings Coll. of the Law v. Martinez, 561 U.S. 661 (all-comers policy and limited public forum principles)
- Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819 (withholding benefits from a religious viewpoint is unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination)
- Healy v. James, 408 U.S. 169 (student group recognition implicates First Amendment rights)
- Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263 (excluding religious groups from university facilities violates the First Amendment)
- Bus. Leaders in Christ v. Univ. of Iowa (BLinC II), 991 F.3d 969 (8th Cir. holding universities may not selectively apply nondiscrimination policies to silence viewpoints; law clearly established)
- Gerlich v. Leath, 861 F.3d 697 (limited public forum and viewpoint discrimination analysis)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (qualified immunity standard)