BLinC v. University of Iowa

     In October of 2017, Business Leaders in Christ (BLinC) was kicked off of the University of Iowa campus.  BLinC is a Christian student organization that hosts weekly meetings on campus where they share Bible verses, have group discussions, and pray amongst other group activities.  Their mission is to foster future business leaders and encourage them to incorporate their faith into their future business endeavors.  In order to accomplish this they frequently invite Christian business leaders to mentor students while also engaging in community service where they mentor at risk and low income children in their community.  In order to ensure their values are shared by its members, BLinC asks that leaders share its Christian faith and beliefs.  This policy is what caused the University of Iowa to 'kick BLinC off campus' by removing them as a registered student organization.  Status as a registered student organization entitles a student group to many benefits including: "Official status as a University organization, establishment of a financial account and purchasing privileges, the ability to receive school funding, inclusion in University publications, use of University organizational software, use of the University’s trademarks, use of campus facilities for meetings, use of University fleet services vehicles, use of University . . . staff and programming resources, [ability] once a semester, to use Information Technology Services Mass Mail, the ability to apply for honors and awards granted to registered organizations; and use of office and storage space."  The University of Iowa argued that requiring a Statement of Faith in order to hold a leadership position violated the University's nondiscrimination policies.  Clearly the benefits the University provides to registered student organization are very valuable and in many ways function to legitimize the student organization.  BLinC sought an injunction against the University to maintain their status as an RSO on the ground that this policy has not been applied neutrally and that Iowa was discriminating against BLinC.  Other groups on campus are able to 'discriminate' in a similar way as the University's fraternities are able to only select men and Iowa's Feminist Union can require its members to agree on issues like abortion and contraception.  In 2019, the Federal District Court of Southern Iowa ruled that the way the University of Iowa applied its 'Human Rights' policy was not constitutional due to the way it unfairly and unevenly applied to religious organizations on campus and not to secular organizations.

    The issue here is whether or not BLinC's right to the free exercise of religion was violated by the University of Iowa.  They clearly believe that participation in this group is a part of their sincere Christian mission but the University of Iowa believed that their interest in enforcing a nondiscrimination policy was more compelling.

    It is complicated to establish precedent for the district court's decision.  The case of BLinC v. University of Iowa is nearly identical to the case of Christian Legal Society v. Martinez (2010)  In that case the court ruled 5-4 that Hastings College of Law was able to apply similar standards to the Christian Legal Society to maintain registered student organization status on its campus.  The CLS could not have similar faith tests for membership in its organization.  The majority opinion explained that applying an all comers policy, "a viewpoint neutral standard", to CLS was appropriate and constitutional.  However, at Hastings College, like at the University of Iowa, other clubs were allowed to discriminate based on beliefs such as the campus Republican and Democrats, as well as student pro-life and pro-abortion groups.  It was only religious groups at Hastings who were being targeted with the 'neutral' all comers policy.  Given this, Justice Alito's minority opinion argued that Hastings College acted unconstitutionally.  Alito argued that such nondiscrimination policies for clubs do not achieve their stated goals of fostering broad and safe debate.  Moreover, even if they did, and if the state had a compelling interest to foster such an environment, "no legitimate state interest could override the powerful effect that an accept-all-comers law would have on the ability of religious group to express their views" (Munoz 565).  This last quotation from Justice Alito is the crux of BLinC's argument, that that activity at their club is religious expression and the government (public university) cannot abridge their free exercise of religion, especially if the standard used to limit their activity is applied unevenly.  The government must be neutral towards religion and secular society.  Despite the powerful dissent, Christian Legal Society v. Martinez still establishes a precedent that public universities can apply nondiscrimination policies to groups that would like to gain or maintain RSO status.

    More recent cases may be friendlier to the Business Leaders in Christ club.  The case of Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer (2016) established that "denying a generally available benefit solely on account of religious identity imposes a penalty on the free exercise of religion."  Moreover, when rejecting free exercise challenges to neutral laws of general applicability "the Court has been careful to distinguish such laws from those that single out the religious for disfavored treatment."  I believe the Trinity Lutheran case provides hope for BLinC because they are a religious group being denied a generally available student benefit solely on account of their religious identities.  The nondiscrimination policies of the University of Iowa have not been applied similarly to other student groups that require membership to have similar beliefs, and they were singled out for their Christian views.

    I agree with the district court's ruling that the University of Iowa unconstitutionally targeted the Business Leaders in Christ club.  The key issue is that while other organizations had access to the RSO status, BLinC did not because they required their organization's leadership to profess their faith in Christ, which was the essential element of the club.  This nondiscrimination policy is not applied neutrally and is not narrowly constructed to meet the school's interests.  Nor, does the school have a compelling interest in overriding the free exercise rights of BLinC.  As Alito argues in Martinez, students ought to be "free to form and obtain registration of essentially the same broad range of private groups that nonstudents may form off campus" (Munoz 564).  As a public institution, the University of Iowa must be held to the same standard that other government organizations are in upholding the First Amendment.  Given that, I believe Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer is an appropriate precedent for upholding the district courts ruling. BLinC is entitled to a generally available public benefit (RSO status) in this case.  To deny them such violates their right to free exercise of religion.  Moreover, such actions by public institutions make it significantly more difficult for religious persons to exercise their faith.  Hopefully the Supreme Court will continue in a direction that expands religious freedom on and off campus.