Federal court rules that university officials can be held personally accountable for religious discrimination

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has ruled in favor of a Christian club that was kicked off campus by officials at the University of Iowa.

Business Leaders in Christ (BLinC) is a club at the University of Iowa that seeks to help Christian students integrate their faith with business. All students are permitted to join the club, but the club requires its leaders to share its Christian beliefs. Leaders of the group are required to sign a Statement of Faith.

When one student filed a complaint claiming that he was denied leadership in the club due to his sexual orientation, the school allegedly told BLinC that it must “revise” its statement of faith and submit an “acceptable plan” for selecting leaders. When BLinC refused, the club was de-registered and booted off campus.

BLinC filed suit and was represented by Becket Law. Attorney Eric Baxter said, “BLinC takes good students and makes them better by strengthening their resolve to remain true to their moral compass in the cutthroat business world.” He added, “Any wise university would be thrilled to have them on campus, but the University of Iowa tried hounding them off instead. Fortunately, the First Amendment protects their right to remain on campus on the same terms as every other student group.”

In 2018, a district court ruled in favor of BLinC, reinstating the group on campus and informing the school that they must not target groups based on religion. The school instead began discriminating against virtually all religious clubs, but still allowed other secular groups to have requirements for leadership based on their mandated gender or ideology.

A year later, in a separate hearing, the district court addressed the university’s reaction and ruled that officials had “deliberately exempted some groups from its Human Rights Policy.” The judges wrote,

“The undisputed evidence show[ed] BLinC was prevented from expressing its viewpoints on protected characteristics while other student groups… [were] permitted to do so…The Constitution does not tolerate the way [the university] chose to enforce the Human Rights Policy. Particularly when free speech is involved, the uneven application of any policy risks the most exacting standard of judicial scrutiny, which [the university] ha[s] failed to withstand.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit decided in favor of BLinC as well based on its free speech and expressive-association claims. However, the three-judge panel also summarily ruled that Iowa administrators can be held personally liable for their discriminatory behavior. A lower court will determine the damages to be awarded. Judge Jonathan A. Kobes wrote,

“The law is clear: state organizations may not target religious groups for differential treatment or withhold an otherwise available benefit solely because they are religious. That is what happened here. The individual defendants may pick their poison: they are either plainly incompetent or they knowingly violated the Constitution. Either way, they should not get qualified immunity.”

Baxter celebrated the ruling, saying, “It’s deeply ironic that school officials tried using the university’s nondiscrimination policy to discriminate against religion. They knew this was wrong, yet did it anyway. We’re pleased the court has recognized that such blatant religious discrimination brings personal consequences.”

BLinC’s case is reminiscent of Chike Uzuegbunam’s case in which the Supreme Court ruled that a school can still be held liable for damages even if they change a discriminatory policy. The ruling was necessary because schools were restricting students’ free speech and free exercise of religion, but if a student filed suit, officials would change the policy to avoid consequences.

Schools have proven that they will continue to discriminate unless there are consequences. The University of Iowa responded to a federal judge ordering them not to discriminate against a religious club by discriminating against nearly all religious clubs. In Uzuegbunam’s case, he was not seeking actual monetary damages, but wanted to ensure that schools can be held accountable when violate a student’s First Amendment rights.

Whether BLinC receives actual damages or not, this is a significant victory for students of faith because it serves as a notice to university officials who seek to discriminate: Not only will the school face consequences, but administrators can also be held personally liable.

Purposeful and habitual discrimination against religious groups in favor of a student’s unreasonable complaint despite a court order should carry consequences to prevent further discrimination. Clubs should be allowed to choose leaders who share its values. After all, a club is not really Christian if it cannot require its leaders to adhere to Christian beliefs.

If you like this article and other content that helps you apply a biblical worldview to today’s politics and culture, consider making a small donation here.