Please visit my author page at amazon.com
InterVarsity Christian Fellowship/USA, et al., v. University of Iowa, et al.,. IA Free Exercise
The University of Iowa allows student organizations to become "Registered Student Organizations" (RSO). RSO status has many benefits, including the ability to apply for funds from student activity fees, inclusion in University publications, use of University trademarks, and use of campus meeting facilities. An RSO must have purposes consistent with the University's educational objectives, and adhere to certain University policies, including the human rights policy.
The University did acknowledge that an RSO could exclude members, as long as the restriction was consistent with the human rights policy. The University interpreted the policy as not allowing RSOs to require leaders to agree with the organization's religious beliefs.
In 2018, the University reviewed all RSOs for compliance. InterVarsity was a Christian ministry. Membership was open to all, but leaders required to affirm the group's statement of faith. Leaders led the group in religious activities such as Bible studies and religious services. The organization viewed its leaders as an embodiment of its faith and Christian message.
In June 2018, the University informed InterVarsity that this language violated the human rights policy, since it was a restriction on leadership related to religious belief. InterVarsity refused to budge, and the University deregistered the group. The group then filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, and the case was assigned to Judge Stephanie M. Rose. Cross motions for summary judgment were filed, and Judge Rose issued her decision on September 27, 2019. After addressing the issue of whether the individual defendants would face personal liability, she turned to the underlying merits of the case, first the claims of Free Speech and Free Association.
The court first held that a public university could limit access to limited public forums, but only if the barriers are reasonable and viewpoint neutral. She went on to hold, citing an earlier companion case, that the University's policy must be stricken down since it was not viewpoint neutral. In particular, the court noted that various other organizations such as sports clubs and singing clubs were allowed to base decisions on gender.
The court next turned to the plaintiff's free exercise claims. Here, the court zeroed in on the fact that some groups had limitations on leadership based upon secular motivations. Here, however, the group was denied the right to impose requirements that were religiously motivated. For example, the court noted that political groups were allowed to limit leadership to those who shared the group's political views, but this religious group was not allowed to limit leadership to those sharing the group's religious views.
By allowing this distinction, the court held, the University had made the judgment that secular views were more important than religious views, and that this decision was contrary to the free exercise clause. In particular, the court imposed the "strict scrutiny" test to the University's decision and held that the University had failed to meet its burden.
The court then held that the plaintiffs were entitled to at least nominal damages, and that a permanent injunction should be granted. Assuming the plaintiffs were to dismiss certain unadjudicated claims, the case would go to trial as to the personal liability of some of the individual defendants involved in the case.
No. 3:18-cv-00080-SMR-SBJ (S.D. Iowa Sept. 27, 2019).
Please see the original opinion for the court's exact language.
Advertisement:
Richard P. Clem is an attorney and continuing legal education (CLE) provider in Minnesota. He has been in private practice in the Twin Cities for 25 years. He has a J.D., cum laude, from Hamline University School of Law in St. Paul and a B.A. in History from the University of Minnesota. His reported cases include: Asociacion Nacional de Pescadores a Pequena Escala o Artesanales de Colombia v. Dow Quimica de Colombia, 988 F.2d 559, rehearing denied, 5 F.3d 530 (5th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1041 (1994); LaMott v. Apple Valley Health Care Center, 465 N.W.2d 585 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991); Abo el Ela v. State, 468 N.W.2d 580 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991).
For more information about attorney Clem, please visit
his website.
For more information about his low-cost CLE programs, please visit his CLE page.
Return to index of case summaries
Copyright 2019, Richard P. Clem.
Attorney Richard P. Clem is responsible for the content of this page.
Richard P. Clem, Attorney
PO Box 14957
Minneapolis, MN 55414
USA
Phone: +1-612-378-7751
e-mail: clem.law@usa.net
Minnesota Attorney Registration Number 0192648
Please visit my author page at amazon.com