Court Upholds Accreditation Requirement For Religious University

In Wisdom Ministries, Inc. v. Garrett,(ND OK, Aug. 1, 2023), an Oklahoma federal district court rejected a constitutional challenge to a cease and desist order issued by the Oklahoma State Regents.  The Regents insisted that Wisdom University, an Oklahoma-based online university operated by Wisdom Ministries, obtain proper accreditation before it issues degrees. The court held that the requirement does not violate the university's free expression, free exercise, Establishment Clause, freedom of association or equal protection rights, saying in part:

The issue raised by plaintiff has nothing to do with governmental restriction of content or subject matter being taught at Wisdom University but, instead, the state is applying a facially neutral regulation that ... falls with the power of the state to regulate business conduct....

Consumer protection is a legitimate state interest, and there is an equal need to protect students attending a secular or religious institution from paying for a degree program that does not meet certain minimal objective standards. The statute does not impose any higher burden on religious schools to obtain accreditation and such institutions are free to obtain accreditation from an agency specializing on accreditation for religious schools. Nothing about the accreditation requirement suggests that the state is favoring secular institutions or acting with hostility to religious institutions, and plaintiff has not shown that enforcement of the accreditation requirement of § 4103 violates the Free Exercise Clause as applied to religious colleges or universities....

Plaintiff’s allegations do not support a plausible claim that enforcement of the accreditation requirement of § 4103 will violate plaintiff’s rights under the Establishment Clause. Plaintiff makes a series of conclusory allegations that obtaining proper accreditation will involve the Regents in plaintiff’s religious affairs, but these allegations are speculative at best. Defendants have taken the position that Wisdom Ministries is free to operate a school or university without obtaining the accreditation required by § 4103, as long as Wisdom Ministries does not purport to offer a degree.

Supreme Court Denies Review in Christian College's Challenge to Fair Housing Act Enforcement

The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday denied review in The School of the Ozarks v. Biden, (Docket No. 22-816, certiorari denied, 6/20/2023). (Order List). In the case, the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals held in a 2-1 decision that a Christian college lacks standing to challenge a memorandum issued by an acting assistant secretary of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The memorandum directs the HUD office that enforces the Fair Housing Act to investigate all discrimination complaints, including discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. The school's religiously-inspired Code of Conduct specifies that biological sex determines a person's gender. The school maintains single-sex residence halls and does not permit transgender individuals to live in residence halls that do not match their biological sex. (See prior posting.)

Suit Challenges High School-College Dual Enrollment Plan Exclusion of Some Religious Colleges

Suit was filed yesterday in a Minnesota federal district court challenging a Minnesota statute that excludes certain religious colleges from participating in the state's Postsecondary Enrollment Options (PSEO) program. The program allows students to earn college credits free of charge at public or private colleges while still in high school. An amendment to the PSEO law which will take effect on July 1 bars colleges from participating in the program if the school requires a faith statement from high schoolers or if any part of the admission decision is based on a high schooler's religious beliefs or affiliations.  The complaint (full text) in Loe v. Walz, (D MN, filed 5/24/2023), alleges that the new law variously violates the free exercise, free speech, Establishment Clause and equal protection rights of religious families and religious colleges. The complaint alleges in part:

172. The amendment requires Plaintiffs Crown [College] and [University of] Northwestern to choose between maintaining their religious identities and receiving an otherwise available benefit for which they have been eligible for decades. 

173. It likewise forces the Loe family and the Erickson family to either forgo receipt of an otherwise-available benefit or forgo their right to seek an education in accordance with their religious beliefs.

Becket issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Yeshiva University Creates New LGBTQ Student Group Amid Litigation

Yeshiva University, which is embroiled in litigation over whether it must recognize an LGBTQ student group, YU Pride Alliance, yesterday announced that it has approved a new club for undergraduate LGBTQ students "that presents an approved traditional Orthodox alternative to YU Pride Alliance." Known as Kol Yisrael Areivim Club, the new organization is described by the University:

This newly founded undergraduate student club, which emerges from Yeshiva’s principles and its students’ interest for a club under traditional Orthodox auspices, was approved by the Administration, in partnership with lay leadership, and endorsed by senior Roshei Yeshiva. It also reflects input and perspectives from conversations between Yeshiva’s rabbis, educators, and current and past undergraduate LGBTQ students. The club will provide students with space to grow in their personal journeys, navigating the formidable challenges that they face in living a fully committed, uncompromisingly authentic halachic life within Orthodox communities. Within this association students may gather, share their experiences, host events, and support one another while benefiting from the full resources of the Yeshiva community – all within the framework of Halacha – as all other student clubs.

The University said it also wants to strengthen its support systems for LGBTQ students. 

YU Pride Alliance issued a response to the University's announcement, calling it a "desperate stunt" by the University, saying in part:

The YU sham is not a club as it was not formed by students, is not led by students, and does not have members; rather it is a feeble attempt by YU to continue denying LGBTQ students equal treatment as full members of the YU community.

Both sides say the current litigation will continue. The Forward reports on these developments.

Yeshiva University Suspends All Student Organization Activities Rather Than Recognize LGBTQ Organization

As previously reported, the U.S. Supreme Court last week in Yeshiva University v. YU Pride Alliance ordered Yeshiva University to first seek relief through appeals in state courts before asking the U.S. Supreme Court to stay a state trial court order requiring it to recognize an LGBTQ student group. Now, as reported by CNN, the University on Friday announced that it would put all undergraduate club activities on hold while it "takes steps to follow the roadmap provided by the US Supreme Court..."

UPDATE: Religion News Service reports:

A Jewish LGBTQ organization [JQY] announced Tuesday (Sept. 20) that it will step in to provide funding for all student clubs at Yeshiva University after school officials suspended all undergraduate student groups rather than recognize an LGBTQ campus group, the YU Pride Alliance.

UPDATE 2: In a statement (full text) issued Sept. 21, YU Pride Alliance announced that it would agree to a stay of the order requiring the University to recognize it while the litigation continues because it does not want YU to punish fellow-students. As reported by The Commentator, the University welcomed the response, saying it offers an opportunity for continuing discussions.

Supreme Court Vacates Stay of Injunction Against Yeshiva University, Sending Case Back To State Courts

The U.S. Supreme court yesterday in Yeshiva University v. YU Pride Alliance, (Sup. Ct., Sept. 14, 2022), vacated the stay issued on Sept. 9 by Justice Sotomayor of a New York state trial court's injunction that required Yeshiva University to officially recognize as a student organization an LGBTQ group, YU Pride Alliance. In a 5-4 vote, the Court issued the following opinion directing the University to first seek expedited review and interim relief from New York trial courts.  Here is the full opinion [paragraph breaks added]:

The application (22A184) for stay pending appeal of a permanent injunction entered by the New York trial court, presented to Justice Sotomayor and by her referred to the Court, is denied without prejudice to applicants again seeking relief from this Court if, upon properly seeking expedited review and interim relief from the New York courts, applicants receive neither. The order heretofore entered by Justice Sotomayor is vacated.

Applicants Yeshiva University and its president seek emergency relief from a non-final order of the New York trial court requiring the University to treat an LGBTQ student group similarly to other student groups in its student club recognition process. The application is denied because it appears that applicants have at least two further avenues for expedited or interim state court relief. First, applicants may ask the New York courts to expedite consideration of the merits of their appeal. Applicants do not assert, nor does the Appellate Division docket reveal, that they have ever requested such relief. Second, applicants may file with the Appellate Division a corrected motion for permission to appeal that court’s denial of a stay to the New York Court of Appeals, as the Appellate Division clerk’s office directed applicants to do on August 25. Applicants may also ask the Appellate Division to expedite consideration of that motion.

If applicants seek and receive neither expedited review nor interim relief from the New York courts, they may return to this Court.

Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas, Justice Gorsuch, and Justice Barrett join, dissent.

NY Jewish Week reports on the decision. [Thanks to Rabbi Michael Simon for the lead.]

UPDATE: Here is the full text of Justice Alito's dissent. He said in part:

At least four of us are likely to vote to grant certiorari if Yeshiva’s First Amendment arguments are rejected on appeal, and Yeshiva would likely win if its case came before us. A State’s imposition of its own mandatory interpretation of scripture is a shocking development that calls out for review. The Free Exercise Clause protects the ability of religious schools to educate in accordance with their faith.

Christian University Trustees Sued Over LGBTQ Hiring Policy

Suit was filed this week in a Washington state trial court against six members of the Board of Trustees of Seattle-Pacific University challenging the University's policy of refusing to hire LGBTQ faculty or staff if they are in a same-sex marriage or a same-sex relationship.  The complaint (full text) in Guillot v. Whitehead, (WA Super. Ct., filed 9/11/2022), brought by a group of students, faculty and staff, alleges breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, negligent misrepresentation and interference with contractual relationships. It contends that "rogue" members of the University Board of Trustees have misled other Board members about the vote necessary to eliminate the hiring policy. The University, which was founded by the Free Methodist Church of North America, defines itself as a Christian university. One-third of its board members and its president must be members of the Free Methodist Church. The complaint alleges in part:

1. This case is about six men who act as if they, and the educational institution they are charged to protect, are above the law.

2. They are powerful men who use their positions, as trustees of Seattle Pacific University (“SPU”), to advance the interests of a religious denomination at the expense of the students, alumni, staff, and faculty of the university....

102. SPU is a university in crisis, stemming from the abusive leadership of entrenched interests who usurped control of the BOT to place it in service of sectarian-motivated LGBTQ+ discrimination....

AP reports on the lawsuit.

Justice Sotomayor Stays NY Order Requiring Yeshiva University To Recognize LGBTQ Group

In Yeshiva University v. YU Pride Alliance, (Sup. Ct., Sept. 9, 2022),  U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor today issued an order staying a New York trial court's injunction that required Yeshiva University to officially recognize as a student organization an LGBTQ group, YU Pride Alliance. The New York trial court held that applying the public accommodation provisions of the New York City Human Rights Law to Yeshiva does not violate its First Amendment free exercise or free speech rights. (See prior posting.) Justice Sotomayor granted the University's Emergency Application for a Stay Pending Appellate Review without referring the petition to the full Court. However she wrote that her stay was granted "pending further order of the undersigned or of the Court." CNN reports on developments.

Yeshiva University Asks Supreme Court For Stay While State Court Ruling On Recognizing LGBTQ Group Is Appealed

Yesterday, an emergency Application for a Stay Pending Appellate Review (full text) was filed in Yeshiva University v. YU Pride Alliance, (Sup. Ct., filed 8/29/2022). In the case,  a New York state trial court held that New York City's public accommodation law requires Yeshiva University to officially recognize as a student organization an LGBTQ group, YU Pride Alliance. (See prior posting.) State appellate courts refused to stay the ruling. The petition contends that Yeshiva University is likely to succeed on its contention that forcing it to recognize the group violates the University's free exercise rights and the principles of church autonomy. The filing asks that alternatively it be treated as a petition for certiorari. Becket issued a press release announcing the filing of the Application.

Christian University Sues To Stop Investigation of LGBTQ Discrimination

Suit was filed yesterday in a Washington federal district court by a Christian university challenging the state of Washington's investigation of whether the university has discriminated in hiring on the basis of sexual orientation.  The complaint (full text) in Seattle Pacific University v. Ferguson, (WD WA, filed 7/27/2022), alleges in part:

4. As part of its religious commitment, Seattle Pacific expects its faculty, staff and leadership to agree with the University’s statement of faith and to live out that faith as a model for others, including by living according to the University’s religious teachings on marriage. Seattle Pacific relies on its faculty, staff, and leadership to provide a Christian higher education by integrating faith and learning.

5. The U.S. Constitution recognizes and protects the right of Seattle Pacific University to decide matters of faith and doctrine, to hire employees who share its religious beliefs, and to select and retain ministers free from government interference.

6. Defendant does not recognize that right. Despite the Constitution’s clear prohibition on interference in matters of church governance, including entangling investigations of religious employment decisions and the selection of ministers, Washington’s attorney general has launched a probe that does just that.

Courthouse News Service reports on the lawsuit.

8th Circuit: Christian School Lacks Standing To Challenge HUD Memo On Sex Discrimination In Housing

 In The School of the Ozarks, Inc. v. Biden, (8th Cir., July 27, 2022), the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals held in a 2-1 decision that a Christian college lacks standing to challenge a memorandum issued by an acting assistant secretary of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The memorandum directs the HUD office that enforces the Fair Housing Act to investigate all discrimination complaints, including discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. The school's religiously-inspired Code of Conduct specifies that biological sex determines a person's gender. The school maintains single-sex residence halls and does not permit transgender individuals to live in residence halls that do not match their biological sex. The majority said in part:

The Memorandum does not, as the College presupposes, require that HUD reach the specific enforcement decision that the College’s current housing policies violate federal law. The Memorandum, for example, says nothing of how the Religious Freedom Restoration Act or the Free Exercise Clause may limit enforcement of the Fair Housing Act’s prohibition on sex discrimination as applied to the College....

The College’s alleged injury also lacks imminence because it is speculative that HUD will file a charge of discrimination against the College in the first place.... [T]he agency has never filed such a charge against a college for sex discrimination based on a housing policy that is specifically exempted from the prohibition on sex discrimination in education under Title IX....

Judge Grasz dissented, arguing in part that the school has already suffered an injury-- the right to notice and comment on proposed rules. He said: "In my view, HUD’s Memorandum is an interpretative rule."

College Seeks Injunction Pending Appeal To 8th Circuit In Suit Against HUD's Transgender Policy On Student Housing

In February of this year, the Department of Housing and Urban Development issued a Directive interpreting the Fair Housing Act as barring discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. This meant, among other things, that colleges could not discriminate against transgender individuals in access to student housing. College of the Ozarks filed suit challenging the Directive as a violation of its religious freedom rights. (See prior posting.) A Missouri federal district court refused to issue a TRO or a preliminary injunction, denied an injunction pending appeal, and dismissed the case as non-justiciable on the ground that the Directive is a non-binding policy statement.  Now the College has filed a motion with the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals seeking an injunction pending appeal. The School of the Ozarks, Inc. v. Biden, (8th Cir., filed 6/11/2021). (Full text of memorandum in support of the motion.) ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the motion.

DOJ's Memo In Title IX Litigation Raises Controversy

As previously reported, in a class action filed in April, LGBTQ+ students enrolled at religious colleges that receive federal financial assistance sued the Department of Education challenging the constitutionality of the exemption for religious organizations from anti-discrimination requirements of Title IX.  Subsequently, three Christian universities filed a motion to intervene as defendants, contending that the Department of Education would not adequately defend the exemption. The government's memo in opposition to the motion to intervene (full text) in Hunter v. U.S. Department of Education, (D OR, filed 6/8/2021) has created controversy.  As reported by the Washington Post:

Some LGBTQ advocates were disturbed by the filing...,  saying its wording went further than necessary, further than just an obligation to defend an existing law. They want the administration to agree with them that it’s unconstitutional for federally-funded schools to discriminate against LGBTQ people....

To others, including Biden supporters, the administration had no other option, since ... Title 9 ...exempts religion..... 

However, in a possible sign of the pressure on the administration, the Justice Department amended the document Wednesday, taking out the word “vigorously” to describe its defense of the religious exemption and retaining multiple uses of the word “adequate.” It removed wording that said the Department of Education and the Christian schools “share the same ‘ultimate objective’ … namely, to uphold the Religious Exemption as it is currently applied.”

... Slate legal writer Mark Joseph Stern said the Justice Department was “trying to prevent a Christian organization from . . . mounting extreme arguments." Stern said the religious exemption to Title 9 isn’t “blatantly, invidiously unconstitutional” and thus the administration has no choice but to defend it.

Students Sue Yeshiva University For Refusal To Recognize LGBTQ Organizations

Suit was filed this week in a New York state trial court against Yeshiva University by an LGBTQ student organization and four current and former students claiming that the university's continued refusal to recognize a student organization for LGBTQ students violates New York City's Human Rights Law. The complaint (full text) in YU Pride Alliance v. Yeshiva University, (NYCty. Sup. Ct., filed 4/26/2021) alleges in part:

[D]isparate treatment and the denial of these concomitant benefits to club recognition, solely based on Plaintiffs’ sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity, is not only harmful to the students, but also unlawful as it amounts to a failure to provide equal access to facilities in violation of New York City laws.

Washington Post, reporting on the lawsuit, sets out a portion of the university's response to the lawsuit:

Our LGBTQ+ students are our sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, family and friends. Our policies on harassment and discrimination against students on the basis of protected classifications including LGBTQ+ are strong and vigorously enforced. Our Torah-guided decision about this club in no way minimizes the care and sensitivity that we have for each of our students, nor the numerous steps the university has already taken.

Christian College Sues HUD Over Interpretation of Fair Housing Act

Suit was filed last week in a Missouri federal district court challenging a Directive issued last month by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development interpreting the Fair Housing Act as barring discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. The 70-page complaint (full text) in The School of the Ozarks, Inc. v. Biden, (WD MO, filed 4/15/2021), in addition to claiming a number of procedural problems with the adoption of the Directive, alleges that it violates the 1st Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The complaint alleges in part:

1. This action challenges a federal agency directive that requires private religious colleges to place biological males into female dormitories and to assign them as females’ roommates. 

39. The Christian faith is an integral part of life at College of the Ozarks....

57. The College teaches human sexuality is a gift from God....

58. The College teaches that sex as determined at birth is a person’s God-given, objective gender, whether or not it differs from their internal sense of “gender identity,” and it bases this teaching on such Biblical passages as Genesis 1:27, Leviticus 18:22, Matthew 19:4, Romans 1:26–27, and 1 Corinthians 6:9–10.

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

LGBTQ+ Students Challenge Title IX Religious Institution Exemption

In a class action lawsuit filed earlier this week in an Oregon federal district court, 33 LGBTQ+ students enrolled at religious colleges that receive federal financial assistance challenge the constitutionality of the exemption in Title IX for educational institutions controlled by religious organizations.  The exemption applies if the non-discrimination provisions of Title IX would conflict with the organization's religious tenets. The complaint (full text) in Hunter v. U.S. Department of Education, (D OR, filed 3/29/2021) alleges that the Department of Education's refusal to enforce non-discrimination provisions against religious colleges:

leaves students unprotected from the harms of conversion therapy, expulsion, denial of housing and healthcare, sexual and physical abuse and harassment, as well as the less visible, but no less damaging, consequences of institutionalized shame, fear, anxiety and loneliness.

Alleging equal protection and Establishment Clause claims, plaintiffs contend:

[W]hile the statutory religious exemption to Title IX may permit, or even require, the Department to refuse assistance to sexual and gender minority students like the Plaintiffs, the Constitution forbids such inaction.

NBC News reports on the lawsuit.

UPDATE: An amended complaint (full text) was filed on June 7, 2021).

NY Court Approves Sale of Christian College Campus To Yeshiva

Under New York law, court approval (or approval by the attorney General) is required for sale of assets of a non-profit educational corporation. In In re Nyack College, (Sup Ct NY County, Nov. 13, 2020), the court approved the sale of Nyack College's South Nyack campus to Yeshiva of Viznitz D'Khal Torath Chaim in Ramapo. Nyack, a Christian College.  According to Lower Hudson News, the Yeshivah plans to operate Jewish religious schools for 250 college age students and 250 high school students.

Pretextual Religious Reasons For Firing Not Protected By Religious Autonomy Doctrine

In Garrick v. Moody Bible Institute, (ND IL, Oct. 13, 2020), an Illinois federal district court allowed a former Instructor of Communications at Moody Bible Institute (MBI) to move ahead with her Title VII disparate treatment and retaliation claims, but not her hostile work environment claim. Plaintiff Janay Garrick says she encountered rampant gender discrimination and harassment, and that MBI used disagreement with her religious views as a pretext for her firing. Rejecting in part MBI's religious autonomy defense, the court said:

Garrick alleges that Moody expected female teachers of secular subjects to perform more demanding duties and submit to more onerous performance reviews than similarly situated male teachers.... Under those circumstances, a reasonable inference can be made from the allegations that Moody fired Garrick because it held female teachers to higher standards than their male counterparts, not because it disapproved of her egalitarian religious views.

The court had dismissed an earlier version of plaintiff's complaint on church autonomy grounds. (See prior posting.)

NLRB Reduces Its Jurisdiction Over Religious Colleges

In Bethany College, (NLRB, June 10, 2020), the National Labor Relations Board overruled its 2014 decision in Pacific Lutheran that had expanded NLRB jurisdiction over religiously-affiliated colleges.  The NLRB said in part:

[W]e now hold that the Board does not have jurisdiction over matters concerning teachers or faculty at bona fide religious educational institutions. We further hold that the test set forth in the D.C. Circuit’s Great Falls case is the appropriate test.... Under this bright-line test, the Board will leave the determination of what constitutes religious activity versus secular activity precisely where it has always belonged: with the religiously affiliated institutions themselves, as well as their affiliated churches and, where applicable, the relevant religious community. Applying the Great Falls test will remove any subjective judgments about the nature of the institutions’ activities or those of its faculty members.... It will prevent the type of intrusive inquiries that the Supreme Court prohibited in Catholic Bishop.... Finally, and importantly, it will provide the Board with a mechanism for determining when self-identified religious schools are not, in fact, bona fide religious institutions, therefore protecting the rights of employees working for those institutions.

[Thanks to Steven H. Sholk for the lead.]

DC Circuit Rejects NLRB's Test For Jurisdiction Over Adjunct Faculty At Religiously-Affiliated Colleges

In Duquesne University of the Holy Spirit v. NLRB, (DC Cir., Jan. 28, 2020), the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, in a 2-1 decision, held that the National Labor Relations Board lacks jurisdiction over adjunct faculty at Duquesne University.  In doing so, the majority rejected the test developed by the National Labor Relations Board in its 2014 Pacific Lutheran decision. The NLRB took the position that it lacks jurisdiction over adjunct faculty at non-profit religiously-affiliated colleges only if both the school holds itself out to the public as a religious institution and the particular faculty group petitioning performs a specific religious role. The majority held that the role played by the particular faculty may not be considered:

Pacific Lutheran impermissibly intrudes into religious matters. The Board suggests that it can avoid constitutional problems by considering only whether a religious school “holds out” faculty members as playing a specific religious role, ... but such an inquiry would still require the Board to define what counts as a “religious role” or a “religious function.” ... Defining which roles qualify would be far outside the competence of Board members and judges.

Judge Pillard dissenting said in part:

The Board’s approach has several advantages.... It recognizes the significant structural and functional differences between adjuncts and full faculty at many schools, as well as the heterogeneity of schools’ religious exercise. It thereby not only respects precedent and protects religious exercise, but also affords schools leeway to delineate for themselves the scope of the academic teaching corps that embodies their religious mission. In contrast to the automatic presumption of religiosity that the court adopts today, the Board’s approach adds a measure of tailoring at the exemption’s outer edge, eliminating needless sacrifice of adjuncts’ NLRA rights but extending the exemption to them where called for by a religious role the school itself identifies.

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports on the decision.