State RFRA Bars Taxpayer Suit Challenging Church's Property Tax Exemption

 In In re Calvary Chapel Iowa, (IA Adm. Hearings Div., Sept. 17, 2024), an Iowa Administrative Law Judge held that the state's Religious Freedom Restoration Act protects churches from taxpayer suits challenging their property tax exemptions.  The ALJ said in part:

The issue in this case is whether as a matter of statutory (not constitutional) law individuals can use the taxpayer-standing provision of Iowa Code section 427.1 to force a religious organization into litigation and spend the time and resources to prove its entitled to its property-tax exemption already claimed by it.  Prior to the enactment of the Iowa Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”) the answer was an unequivocal yes (with individuals having done precisely this for at least a generation); however, with the passage of RFRA, the answer now appears to be no at least under the circumstances of this case. 

As discussed below, this is because this type of litigation imposes a substantial burden on the exercise of religion and because the State’s compelling interest in the appropriate administration of tax law can be met with the lesser restrictive means of having the State (with its constitutional and statutory constraints) enforce tax law.  To hold otherwise would be to allow the unaccountable political opponents of a church the option to use the power of the State to target and/or retaliate against the religious organization for the organization’s activities, thereby creating a chilling effect not only on that specific religious group but also all other similarly oriented religious organizations.  This is precisely the type of religious interference that RFRA was designed to prevent, and until the judiciary provides different guidance on the scope of RFRA, this case must be dismissed.

Christian Post reports on the decision.

Iowa Supreme Court Allows 6-Week Abortion Ban to Go into Effect

In Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, Inc. v. Reynolds, (IA Sup.Ct., June 28, 2024), the Iowa Supreme Court in a 4-3 decision reversed the grant of a temporary injunction against Iowa's 6-week fetal heartbeat abortion ban. The Court said in part:

We have previously held that abortion is not a fundamental right under the Iowa Constitution....  Applying our established tiers of scrutiny, we hold that abortion restrictions alleged to violate the due process clause are subject to the rational basis test. Employing that test here, we conclude that the fetal heartbeat statute is rationally related to the state’s legitimate interest in protecting unborn life. We thus reverse the district court order entering the temporary injunction blocking enforcement of the fetal heartbeat statute....

Chief Justice Christensen, joined by Justices Waterman and Mansfield, filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

Today, our court’s majority strips Iowa women of their bodily autonomy by holding that there is no fundamental right to terminate a pregnancy under our state constitution. I cannot stand by this decision. The majority’s rigid approach relies heavily on the male-dominated history and traditions of the 1800s, all the while ignoring how far women’s rights have come since the Civil War era. It is a bold assumption to think that the drafters of our state constitution intended for their interpretation to stand still while we move forward as a society. Instead, we should interpret our constitution through a modern lens that recognizes how our lives have changed with the passage of time.

Justice Mansfield, joined by Chief Justice Christensen and Justice Waterman, filed a dissenting opinion saying in part:

I believe that subjecting a near-total ban on abortion to a rational basis test—the same test we apply to traffic cameras, and a more forgiving test than the one we apply to a law not allowing county auditors to correct defective absentee ballot applications—disserves the people of Iowa and their constitution. The liberty protected by article I, section 9 of the Iowa Constitution includes a woman’s ability to make decisions regarding her own body, just as it includes rights of procreation, parenting, and to use contraception.

Iowa Enacts Religious Freedom Restoration Act

Yesterday Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds signed SF 2095, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. (Governor's press release.) (Full text of Act.) It provides in part:

State action shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless the government demonstrates that applying the burden to that person's exercise of religion is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

The Gazette reports on the bill.

Iowa Trial Court Temporarily Enjoins State's New Heartbeat Abortion Ban

In Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, Inc. v. Reynolds, (IA Dist. Ct., July 17, 2023), an Iowa state trial court issued a temporary injunction barring enforcement of Iowa's new heartbeat abortion ban. The court held that a decision of the Iowa Supreme Court in 2022 left the federal undue burden test as the controlling test in Iowa abortion cases. The trial court said in part:

When the undue burden standard is applied, it is readily apparent that the Petitioners are likely to succeed on their claim that H.F.732 violates the Due Process clause, article I, section 9 of the Iowa Constitution.

The court's decision was complicated by the fact that in 2018, Iowa passed a similar heartbeat law which was enjoined by a trial court. That injunction remained in place when last month the Iowa Supreme Court deadlocked 3-3 in an appeal of that decision. In yesterday's decision by the trial court, the temporary injunction had one exception. The court said:

The court believes it must follow current Iowa Supreme Court precedent and preserve the status quo ante while this litigation and adversarial presentation which our Supreme Court has invited moves forward. 

However, as the Governor has now signed H.F. 732 into law, the court should except from that status quo, section 2, paragraph 5 of H.F. 732, directing the Iowa Board of Medicine to adopt rules pursuant to Chapter 17A. Should the injunction entered today ultimately be dissolved, it would only benefit all involved, patients and providers alike, to have rules in place to administer the law.

Iowa ACLU issued a press release announcing the decision.

Iowa Passes Fetal Heartbeat Abortion Ban

In a one-day special legislative session on Tuesday, the Iowa legislature passed HF732 (full text), a ban on most abortions if a fetal heartbeat can be detected (usually after 6 weeks of pregnancy). The law has exceptions for medical emergencies, and for rape or incest if reported to law enforcement or health authorities. "Medical emergency" is defined in Iowa Code §146B.1 as where necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant woman or where the pregnancy poses a serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function. AP in its coverage of the bill reports that Governor Kim Reynolds, who called the special session of the legislature, says she will sign the bill on Friday. Earlier this year, the Iowa Supreme Court was evenly divided, thereby affirming a state trial court's holding that a previous fetal heartbeat law violates the Iowa constitution.

Iowa Supreme Court, 3-3, Affirms Invalidation Of Heartbeat Abortion Law

As previously reported, in 2019 an Iowa state trial court judge held that Iowa's "fetal heartbeat" abortion law violates the Iowa state constitution. The case was not appealed. However, in 2022 the state filed a motion to dissolve the injunction and revive the law. The trial court refused to do so, and that decision was appealed to the Iowa Supreme Court.  Now in Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, Inc. v. Reynolds, (IA Sup. Ct., June 16, 2023), the Iowa Supreme Court announced that it was evenly divided, 3-3, on the case (with one Justice recused), so that by operation of law the trial court's decision stands. However individual Justices filed opinions in the case. 

The newly decided case was made more complicated by a decision of the Iowa Supreme Court last year in which it rejected subjecting a different abortion regulation to strict scrutiny under the state Constitution, but did not decide what level of scrutiny should apply.  This left the standard to be the undue burden test imposed by federal law. (See prior posting.)

Now in last week's decision on the fetal heartbeat law, Justice Waterman (joined by Chief Justice Christensen and Justice Mansfield ) wrote that they would not grant the discretionary writ of certiorari, thus refusing to review the trial court decision. He went on to indicate that even if review were granted, they would affirm the trial court, saying in part:

The law as of today has not changed in a way that removes the “constitutional defect” in the fetal heartbeat bill. The undue burden test remains the governing standard under the Iowa Constitution, and the State concedes, as it must, that the fetal heartbeat bill is unconstitutional under that test. The State therefore has failed to establish that the district court acted illegally. There is no basis for certiorari relief.

Justice McDonald filed a separate opinion, joined by Justices McDermott and May, saying in part:

Because there was no controlling decision from this court..., the district court should have applied this court’s other controlling precedents to constitutional claims of this type. Under this court’s controlling precedents, where there is no fundamental right at issue, statutes are subject only to rational basis review.

Justice McDermott filed a separate opinion, joined by Justices McDonald and May, saying in part:

Last year, we were presented with an appeal challenging the constitutionality of a different statute regulating abortion, yet we failed to declare the constitutional standard that applied. This case again presented that same basic task. And for the second time in as many years, we’ve ducked it. It isn’t for us to dictate abortion policy in the state, but simply to interpret and apply the law as best we can in cases that come before us. We fail the parties, the public, and the rule of law in our refusal today to apply the law and decide this case. 

Des Moines Register reports on reactions to the decision.

New Iowa Law Addresses Sexual Materials In School Curriculum; Parental Rights

Last Friday, Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds signed SF 496 (full text) which prohibits public schools from providing "any program, curriculum, test, survey, questionnaire, promotion, or instruction relating to gender identity or sexual orientation to students in kindergarten through grade six. It adds the requirement that various programs and educational materials be "age-appropriate", which is defined in the law as:

topics, messages and teaching methods suitable to particular ages or age groups of children and adolescents, based on developing cognitive, emotional, and behavioral capacity typical for the age or age group. “Age-appropriate” does not include any material with descriptions or visual depictions of a sex act....

School libraries can only contain "age-appropriate" material, except (pursuant to a pre-existing section of Iowa law (Sec. 280.6)):

religious books such as the Bible, the Torah, and the Koran shall not be excluded from any public school or institution in the state, nor shall any child be required to read such religious books contrary to the wishes of the child’s parent or guardian.

The new law amends the statutory health education requirement to eliminate the required teaching about "HPV and the availability of a vaccine to prevent HPV, and acquired immune deficiency syndrome."

The law prohibits schools from giving parents false or misleading information about a student's gender transition intent and requires school districts to inform parents of their student's request for gender-affirming care from a licensed practitioner employed by the school district.

The new law also provides:

[A] parent or guardian bears the ultimate responsibility, and has the fundamental, constitutionally protected right, to make decisions affecting the parent’s or guardian’s minor child, including decisions related to the minor child’s medical care, moral upbringing, religious upbringing, residence, education, and extracurricular activities. Any and all restrictions of this right shall be subject to strict scrutiny.

The law also requires school districts to publish policies relating to parents' requests for removal of materials from school libraries or classrooms and policies for requesting a student not be provided with certain materials.

CNN reports on the new law.

Two Justices Say Iowa Should Adopt Ministerial Exception Doctrine

In Konchar v. Pins, (IA Sup. Ct., April 14, 2023), the Iowa Supreme Court affirmed a trial court's dismissal of fraud, defamation and breach of contract claims by the former long-time principal of a Catholic school.  The court said in part:

Ultimately ... Konchar’s defamation claim is about whether a Catholic priest was justified in deciding that Konchar should no longer serve as principal at a Catholic school. But the district court believed that this kind of inquiry would run afoul of the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause.... In fact, the district court specifically found that the First Amendment precludes inquiries by “a civil court” into “the decision of whether Konchar was suitable for the role of Principal at St. Joseph’s.” And Konchar’s briefs do not challenge this conclusion. So we presume without deciding that the district court was correct, and we decline to reverse.

Justice Waterman, joined by Justice McDermott, filed a concurring opinion saying in part:

I write separately to confirm the majority opinion leaves the door open to formally apply the ministerial exception in our state. I would apply that exception in this case as an alternative ground to affirm dismissal of all tort claims asserted by Phyllis Konchar related to her termination as principal and “spiritual leader” of this church-operated private school. The ministerial exception better protects the autonomy of religious organizations guaranteed under the First Amendment to choose who ministers their faith and spares churches, dioceses, priests, and bishops the entanglement with costly civil litigation this case exemplifies. The extensive discovery, depositions, and trial spanning two weeks that these church defendants endured could have been avoided by a prompt dispositive motion under the ministerial exception long recognized by the United States Supreme Court, federal circuit courts, and other state courts.

Street Preacher Loses His Free Speech Lawsuit

In Sessler v. City of Davenport, (SD IA, Nov. 22, 2022), an Iowa federal district court dismissed a suit for damages and injunctive relief brought by a street preacher who claimed that his free speech rights were violated when he and others with him were required to move from the location at which they were preaching during the city's Street Fest and continue their preaching from another location. According to the court:

Sessler and his group carried signs on extendable poles with messages including: "Hell is enlarged for adulterers . . . homosexuals . . . abortionists" and "Warning! If you are involved in sex out of marriage[,] homosexuality[,] drunkenness[,] night clubbing . . . you are destined for a burning hell[.]" 

The court concluded that Street Fest was a limited public forum, and plaintiff's removal was reasonable and viewpoint neutral.  It went on to say in part:

Sessler has failed to carry his burden of showing Behning, Smith, and Alcala violated a clearly established right, even if Street Fest is considered a traditional public forum. The case law discussed by Sessler does not show a member of the public has a right to continue preaching at a permitted event open to the public after event organizers requested his removal due to complaints that his preaching was driving customers away from fee-paying vendors. Rather, the case law on point suggests a reasonable officer could have concluded Sessler had no constitutional right to continue preaching within the boundaries of Street Fest following such complaints, as long as he was permitted to continue preaching across the street from an entrance to Street Fest. The Officers violated no clearly established right, so they are entitled to qualified immunity from Sessler's claims against them.

Court Rejects Religious Defense To Illegal Possession Of Firearm Charges

In United States v. Harper, (ND IA, Sept. 30, 2022), an Iowa federal district court refused to dismiss indictments charging defendant with  possession of a firearm by a felon and unlawful drug user.  Defendant argued that he is a Muslim who practices Sharia Law which calls for armed self-defense, including the possession of a firearm. The court, accepting the Report and Recommendation [Lexis link] of a magistrate judge, said in part:

There is no less restrictive means to achieve the Government’s compelling interest in uniformly applying gun laws for public safety than prosecuting Harper.

Iowa Asks Its Supreme Court To Follow Dobbs On Standard Of Review For Abortion Regulation

As previously reported, last month the Iowa Supreme Court in Planned Parenthood of Heartland, Inc. v. Reynolds overruled its own 2018 decision and held that neither the due process nor the equal protection clause of Iowa's constitution grants a fundamental right to an abortion. It thus rejected subjecting abortion regulation to strict scrutiny under the state Constitution, but did not decide what level of scrutiny should apply. Now that the U.S. Supreme Court in Dobbs has held that the standard of review under the federal constitution for abortion regulation is rational-basis review, the state has filed with the Iowa Supreme Court a petition for rehearing (full text) in Planned Parenthood of Heartland asking the Court to now hold that rational-basis review is also the correct standard under the Iowa Constitution for review of abortion regulations. ADF issued a press release announcing the filing.

Iowa Supreme Court Overrules 2018 Decision That State Constitution Strongly Protects Abortion Rights

In a complicated set of opinions that span 182 pages, the Iowa Supreme Court overruled their own 2018 decision (referred to in the opinion as "PPH II") and held by a vote of 5-2 that neither the due process nor the equal protection clause of Iowa's constitution grants a fundamental right to an abortion. It thus rejected subjecting abortion regulation-- here a new 24-hour waiting period-- to strict scrutiny under the state Constitution. However the court did not decide what level of scrutiny should apply.  This left the standard to be the undue burden test imposed by federal law. In Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, Inc. v. Reynolds, (IA Sup. Ct., June 17, 2022), Justice Mansfield's majority opinion said in part:

[Law] professors [in an amicus brief] urge that adhering to a precedent when the membership of a court changes “refutes the cynical view that a supreme court is a political institution guided by the justices’ personal values, rather than the law.” But we know that the professors do not share that cynical view, so why do they ask us to act in fear of it? Shouldn’t we instead follow our solemn oaths to uphold the Iowa laws and constitution? In the end, court decisions should be—and we believe are—judged by the strength of their reasoning, not by the identity of the persons who wrote or joined them....

Constitutions—and courts—should not be picking sides in divisive social and political debates unless some universal principle of justice stands on only one side of that debate. Abortion isn’t one of those issues....

In summary, PPH II lacks textual and historical support. It is doctrinally inconsistent with prior Iowa jurisprudence concerning family rights that followed a balancing approach. Its rhetoric is one-sided. Its constitutional footing is unsound. While it is true that some other states have provided heightened protection for abortion rights, they have done so by invoking more relevant substantive constitutional guarantees—such as the right of privacy—not a procedural clause like due process.....

While 5 Justices concurred in that conclusion, 2 of those Justices in an opinion by Justice McDermott disagreed with the instructions on remand given in Justice Mansfield's opinion, saying in part:

I join almost all parts of the court’s opinion, including...  its overruling of ... PPH II.... But I dissent from my colleagues’ remand directing the district court to apply an “undue burden” standard, subject (apparently) to the standard being “litigated further” by the parties. In my view, we should emphatically reject—not recycle—Casey’s moribund undue burden test and instead direct the district court to apply the rational basis test to the plaintiffs’ constitutional challenge.

Chief Justice Christensen filed an opinion dissenting in part, saying: 

Out of respect for stare decisis, I cannot join the majority’s decision to overrule ... PPH II ... because I do not believe any special justification “over and above the [majority’s] belief ‘that the precedent was wrongly decided’ ” warrants such a swift departure from the court’s 2018 decision....

Since 2018, the makeup of our court has significantly changed with the appointment of four new justices to replace outgoing justices. Coincidentally, all four outgoing justices were part of the 5–2 majority that recognized a fundamental right to decide whether to continue or terminate a pregnancy in the 2018 case.

Justice Appel, who is the only Justice on the court who was part of the majority in 2018, filed an 88-page dissent, concluding in part:

The majority has chosen to simply rule that strict scrutiny is not the applicable test of a statute regulating abortion ... and has remanded the case to the district court for further consideration of other issues. The problem with this approach is twofold. First, the majority opinion grossly understates the importance of this life-changing abortion decision on women. Second, the majority opinion eliminates a strong, workable, and widely accepted barrier to governmental intrusion into the reproductive choices of a woman and invites us to stare into the standard-less abyss....

I have some thoughts to seek to salvage what can be salvaged from the decision. First, the district court must recognize the rights primacy of the Iowa Constitution and reject summarily a rational basis test, which is too often no test at all. Second, if a version of the undue burden test is to be adopted, it must be with teeth.

Des Moines Register reports on the decision. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Employee Sues After Being Fired For Religious Objection To Rainbow As Gay Pride Symbol

Suit was filed this week in an Iowa federal district court by a former employee of a metal engineering and manufacturing company who says he was fired for expressing his Christian beliefs. The complaint (full text) in Snyder v. Arconic, Inc., (SD IA, filed 5/18/2022), charges religious discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII and state law. It alleges:

In June 2021, in attempting to respond to an anonymous company survey, Mr. Snyder briefly commented that the company’s use of the rainbow to promote “Gay Pride Month” was “an abomination to God,” as the rainbow “is not meant to be a sign for sexual gender.”

... Arconic informed Mr. Snyder that his comment had been posted publicly on the company “intranet”—which was not Mr. Snyder’s intent—and that it had offended a fellow employee. Mr. Snyder was summarily suspended and then terminated, allegedly for violating the company’s “diversity policy.”

Thomas More Society issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. 

Iowa Adopts IHRA Definition Of Antisemitism

On March 23, Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds signed HF 2220 (full text) which provides that in the enforcement of state anti-discrimination laws, in determining whether an act was undertaken with antisemitic intent, the state shall take into consideration the definition of antisemitism adopted in 2016 by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance.

Governor Reynolds also signed HF2373 (full text) which expanded the definition of "company" in the state's Israel Anti-boycott law.

KCRG News reported on the governor's actions.

8th Circuit: University of Iowa Discriminated Against Christian Student Group

In Intervarsity Christian Fellowship/ USA v. University of Iowa, (8th Cir., July 16, 2021), the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the University of Iowa violated the 1st Amendment rights of Intervarsity Christian Fellowship when the University applied its Human Rights Policy against ICF in a discriminatory manner. ICF required students seeking leadership positions to affirm a statement of faith based on biblical Christianity-- including the belief that same-sex relationships were against the Bible. The court said in part:

For decades, the University permitted RSOs to base their membership and leadership on religious affirmations or other traits that are protected by the Human Rights Policy.... In fact, the University still permits this; but it didn’t for InterVarsity. The district court found that the defendants likely violated BLinC’s constitutional rights and ordered the University to apply the Human Rights Policy equally to all RSOs. But instead of doing that, the University started a compliance review that prioritized religious organizations. That review led to InterVarsity’s deregistration, along with other religious groups. The University’s fervor dissipated, however, once they finished with religious RSOs. Sororities and fraternities got exemptions from the Human Rights Policy. Other groups were permitted to base membership on sex, race, veteran status, and even some religious beliefs.

Take LoveWorks, for example. It was formed by the student who was denied a leadership role in BLinC. LoveWorks requires its members and leaders to sign a “gay-affirming statement of Christian faith.’” ... Despite that requirement—which violates the Human Rights Policy just as much as InterVarsity’s—the University did nothing. 

We are hard-pressed to find a clearer example of viewpoint discrimination.

Becket issued a press release announcing the decision.

Iowa Supreme Court Dismisses Fiduciary and Defamation Claims Against Church and Pastors

In Koster v. Harvest Bible Chapel- Quad Cities,(IA Sup. Ct., May 21, 2021), the Iowa Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of a suit against a church and three of its pastors by a congregant who alleged defamation and breach of fiduciary duty. The court summarized the facts:

Two members of a church went through a fractious divorce. One member alleged that the other member had abused their children, allegations that turned out to be groundless. Their pastor, however, believed the allegations and sent emails to fellow pastors, church staff, and a discipleship group. The emails repeated the allegations to some extent, while also expressing support for the member making the allegations. After the allegations were discredited, the member who had been victimized by the allegations sued the pastor and the church on several tort theories....

We find that the plaintiff’s breach of fiduciary duty claim cannot go forward because it would require consideration of the church’s doctrine and religious practices. We also find that the plaintiff’s defamation claim is subject to a qualified privilege and that plaintiff has not overcome that privilege with evidence of actual malice.

8th Circuit: No Qualified Immunity On Christian Student Group's Free Speech Claim

In Business Leaders In Christ v. University of Iowa, (8th Circuit, March 22, 2021), the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the district court erred in granting qualified immunity to the individual defendants on plaintiff's free speech and expressive association claims. Plaintiff claims that the University selectively applied its human rights policy to prevent it from becoming a recognized student organization because the organization required its leaders to sign a statement of faith that would disqualify individuals on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. The court held that it is clearly established that a nondiscrimination policy neutral on its face violates a student group’s rights to free speech and expressive association if not applied in a viewpoint-neutral manner. Two judges held, however, that the district court correctly granted qualified immunity on plaintiff's free-exercise claim.

Judge Kobes dissented in part, contending that University officials should also not be granted qualified immunity on the free-exercise claim, saying in part:

[S]tate 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.

Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

8th Circuit: Street Preacher Did Not Show Entitlement To Preliminary Injunction

In Sessler v. City of Davenport, (8th Cir., March 18, 2021), the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction to a street preacher who in 2018 had been required by police to leave the Street Fest area in Davenport. He was limited to preaching across the street from one of the festival entrances. Plaintiff sought a preliminary injunction to bar enforcement of the city's Special Events Policy against him through December 2022. The court held:

Although Sessler possesses a First Amendment right to communicate his messages in a public forum, he does not have the wholesale right to disrupt an event covered by a permit....

Even if we assume for purposes of this appeal, without deciding, that Sessler has shown a likelihood of success on the merits, we find Sessler’s inability to demonstrate a threat of irreparable harm heavily weighs against granting preliminary injunctive relief....

The facts as alleged by Sessler show that he was allowed to continue preaching in the City’s public sidewalks and streets, just not those demarcated and secured for use by Street Fest in July 2018. And, although Sessler’s Complaint is based on his removal from a festival governed by the City’s Policy, Sessler does not provide any concrete plans to share his messages at future festivals in the City.

8th Circuit Hears Arguments In College's Deregistration of Christian Student Group

The U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday heard oral arguments in InterVarsity Christian Fellowship USA v. University of Iowa. (Audio of full oral arguments.)  In the case,  an Iowa federal district court held that the University of Iowa and three of its administrators violated the free speech and free exercise rights of a Christian student organization when it revoked its registered student organization status. The University's action was taken because Intervarsity Christian Fellowship required its leaders to affirm the group's Christian statement of faith. The court also denied defendants' claim of qualified immunity. (See prior posting.) Becket Law has a press release with links to some of the documents in the case.

8th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments On Qualified Immunity In Suit By Christian Student Group

 The U.S. 8sth Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday heard oral arguments in Business Leaders in Christ v. University of Iowa. (Audio of full oral arguments.) In the case, an Iowa federal district court granted a permanent injunction to a Christian student group that was denied Registered Student Organization status. The denial was based on the University's Human Rights Policy that prohibits discrimination, among other things, on the basis of sexual orientation. The court concluded that this violated plaintiff's free expression rights. However the court held that individual defendants in the case had qualified immunity in an action for damages against them because "the Court cannot say the constitutional issues were established 'beyond debate.'." (See prior related posting.)