InterVarsity Christian Fellowship v. SUNY Broome Community College

  Should a Christian student organization be allowed to require its religious leaders to be Christian? This is one of the main questions from InterVarsity Christian Fellowship v. SUNY Broome Community College, which is a federal lawsuit that was filed in August 2026. I believe this college should recognize that InterVarsity if their comparable groups can choose their leaders who share their beliefs. But this also depends on whether the SUNY Broome applies its rules equally.

InterVarsity is a Christian ministry that holds Bible studies, prayer, and worship on college campuses. According to its attorneys at Becket, students from either religion or no religion can join and participate. However, the students who are responsible for leading worship, prayer, and religious teaching must sincerely share the group’s Christian beliefs. InterVarsity began building their chapter at SUNY Broome back in 2024, but the college did not officially recognize this club because of their leadership requirement. This group filed a lawsuit on August 21, 2026, and they argued that this decision violated their constitutional rights and requested a preliminary injunction while the case continues.

Recognition is important because this can provide their student groups with opportunities to advertise, recruit at club fairs, reserve regular meeting space, as well as gain funding. Without this, the club InterVarsity can express their beliefs but it will be harder to reach other students. This is important especially at SUNY Broome because many of the students that commute may not have the opportunity to encounter an unrecognized organization. Either way, losing their campus benefits is not automatically the same as being legally prohibited from practicing their religion.

The dispute raises questions regarding their First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause and protections for speech and expressive association. InterVarsity is arguing that their faith determines what the members talk about as well as who should lead their religious activities. I think that this argument deserves more consideration. By welcoming non-Christian students to attend a Bible study is different from requiring the organization to let someone who doesn’t believe in Christianity teach its beliefs. The first can encourage participation while the second one can change the religious message altogether.

However, a public institution can establish nondiscrimination rules for groups that are looking for official recognition. Their goal can be to ensure that students should all have equal opportunities to participate in campus activities, including leadership positions. If every organization must let any student seek office, then allowing InterVarsity is an exception meaning giving it preferential treatment rather than equal treatment.

The Supreme Court addressed a similar conflict in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez (2010). This upheld a public law school's 'all-comers’ policy, which was under every recognized student organization in order to accept all students as members and potential leaders regardless of their beliefs. Under the Court’s limited-public-forum approach, the rule had to be reasonable and a neutral viewpoint. The Court upheld it because every club faced the same condition. Therefore, InterVarsity could not simply argue that religious freedom always entitles it to select leaders while also receiving college benefits.

But Martinez does not give colleges unlimited power to exclude religious organizations. In Rosenberger v. University of Virginia (1995), the Supreme Court ruled that a public university could not deny any type of student activity funding because a student publication expressed a viewpoint neutral. The important difference between these decisions is whether the institution applies a neutral condition to everyone or a disadvantage to a particular religious perspective.

That distinction should also determine the outcome at SUNY Broome. A nondiscrimination policy is not necessarily an all-comers policy, meaning it could restrict any religious qualifications while also allowing other clubs to screen leaders by ideology. The Court should also examine the written rules and how they are being enforced. Should political clubs consider their leaders who reject their positions? Can other belief-based groups require their leaders to support their missions? Becket describes InterVarsity’s rejection, but it does not establish whether the college makes exceptions for other clubs and these facts should be investigated.

If other organizations can choose their leaders that represent their beliefs while InterVarsity cannot, then I believe the college should recognize InterVarsity. That would be considered unequal treatment based on the group’s religious viewpoint. The college could protect broad participation by requiring InterVarsity to welcome all students as members, while also still allowing it to select leaders who will teach their faith. This would respect student access without forcing the organization to change its overall message.

On the other hand, if SUNY Broome genuinely required every club to allow all students to seek a leadership position, then Martinez supports the college’s position. My preference for religious autonomy would not justify an exemption alone. Ultimately, protecting their religious freedom does not mean giving religious groups greater rights than everyone else. This means public colleges are not using rules about inclusion to treat religious viewpoints differently from nonreligious ones.