Last year, the US Supreme Court ruled that a university policy requiring student organizations to accept all who wanted to be members is constitutional. In that "all-comers" context, that meant religious groups cannot limit membership based upon religious belief. But the Court argued that because the policy is completely neutral – all groups had to accept all applicants to gain official approval – it does not violate a religious group's rights to limit membership. That decision did not address other more narrow policy types that may place similar constraints on religious groups, but one was the subject of a 9th Circuit ruling yesterday,
The policy in question was California's state-wide rule that no group can receive official recognition if it discriminates based upon "race, sex, color, age, religion, national origin, marital status, sexual orientation, physical or mental handicap, ancestry, or medical condition…". Plaintiffs in this case – a Christian fraternity and sorority at San Diego State – claim that the policy unconstitutionally allows some groups to limit membership while refusing to allow religious groups to do the same, due to the religious nondiscrimination requirement. The 9th Circuit panel disagreed.
[T]he Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said the Constitution allows a public university to withhold funds selectively as long as its purpose is to combat discrimination rather than to suppress free speech.
The goal of San Diego State's policy is to "remove access barriers imposed against groups that have historically been excluded," said Judge Harry Pregerson in the 3-0 ruling. He said the religious organizations can continue to set their own membership rules but "cannot oblige the university to subsidize them."
The Court said the groups may proceed with their claim that they were discriminated against in the application of the policy, but the rule itself is acceptable.
Can a religious organization maintain its character with the mandate to accept all religions and all religious views? Does this policy place a higher hurdle in front of religious organizations than others? Is this rule, in effect, a refusal to fund religious groups? Is that ok?
You can read the ruling here.
