First Amendment Win in the 8th Circuit

[smac97]

See here (from March 2021) :

Quote

Another Win for Christian Student Group at University of Iowa

Federal appeals court finds that Iowa administrators can be held personally liable for their actions in deregistering a Christian student group that denied a leadership role to a gay student.

By Elizabeth Redden // March 23, 2021

A federal appeals court ruled Monday that University of Iowa administrators can be held personally liable and sued for damages due to their actions deregistering a Christian student group that denied a leadership position to a gay student.

The case involves a student group called Business Leaders in Christ, whose members believe that same-sex relationships are “outside of God’s design.” After the group denied an executive leadership position to a gay student in 2017 on the stated grounds that the student “disagreed with, and would not agree to live by [BLinC’s] religious beliefs,” the university began a process that ultimately led to the revocation of the group’s status.

BLinC sued and, in a 2019 decision that alarmed advocates for LGBTQ+ students, a district court judge held that the university selectively enforced its Human Rights Policy and violated BLinC members’ constitutional rights to free speech, free association and free exercise of religion. The university did not appeal the judge's holding that it infringed on the BLinC members' First Amendment rights.

Rather, at issue in the appeal was whether the three individual Iowa administrators named as defendants could be personally liable and sued for damages, or whether they are shielded by qualified immunity, a legal doctrine that grants government officials immunity from civil lawsuits except in cases where their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

In a decision that hinged on an assessment of whether the rights at issue were “clearly established,” the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit partially reversed the ruling of the district court, which had granted the administrators qualified immunity. The appeals court held that the administrators can be held personally liable in relation to the students’ free expression and expressive association claims, but not in relation to claims related to free exercise of religion.

In a dissenting opinion, Judge Jonathan Kobes went even further, holding that the officials should also be liable for the free exercise claims.

“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,” he wrote. “That is what happened here. The individual defendants may pick their position: they are either plainly incompetent or they knowingly violated the Constitution. Either way, they should not get qualified immunity.”

 

I think this is very good news.  I am happy to see intolerant bullies in academia get their comeuppance.

I am really happy to see qualified immunity not protect the individual players.  These yahoos have been using academic institutions to advance their unlawful behavior, and then run and hide behind qualified immunity to protect themselves and their assets when such unlawful behavior is challenged and rebutted.

See also this update (from July25) : 

Quote

Intervarsity Christian Fellowship v. University of Iowa, No. 19-3389 (8th Cir. July 16, 2021):

Employees of the University of Iowa targeted religious student organizations for discriminatory enforcement of its Human Rights Policy. After the district court ordered it to stop selectively enforcing the policy against one religious group, the University deregistered another—InterVarsity Graduate Christian Fellowship. InterVarsity filed suit. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court held that University employees violated InterVarsity’s First Amendment rights and denied qualified immunity. We affirm. ...

InterVarsity has been active at the University for over twenty-five years. The group is affiliated with InterVarsity Christian Fellowship/USA, “a national ministry” to “establish university-based witnessing communities of students and faculty who follow Jesus as Savior and Lord, and who are growing in love for God, God’s Word, and God’s people of every ethnicity and culture.”

Membership and participation in the University’s chapter of InterVarsity is open to all students, but those who seek leadership roles are required to affirm a statement of faith, which includes “the basic biblical truths of Christianity.”

Over twenty-five years, Iowa had no problem with InterVarsity. But in June 2018, [the University] charged that InterVarsity’s constitution violated the Human Rights Policy. ... [T]he University deregistered the group a few weeks later.

We are hard-pressed to find a clearer example of viewpoint discrimination. The University’s choice to selectively apply the Human Rights Policy against InterVarsity suggests a preference for certain viewpoints ...  over InterVarsity’s. ...

 

What the University did here was clearly unconstitutional. It targeted religious groups for differential treatment under the Human Rights Policy—while carving out exemptions and ignoring other violative groups with missions they presumably supported. The University and individual defendants turned a blind eye to decades of First Amendment jurisprudence or they proceeded full speed ahead knowing they were violating the law. Either way, qualified immunity provides no safe haven.

Again, I am really happy to see qualified immunity not protect the individual players.

I hope this case reverberates throughout academia.  Bigly.  It is, in my view, a significant win for religious liberty in America.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 26, 2021 by smac97

[Stormin' Mormon]

And then the First Amendment loses in the 10th circuit.

https://reason.com/volokh/2021/07/26/2-1-decision-holds-web-site-designer-may-be-required-to-design-site-for-same-sex-weddings/

 

Two steps forward, one step back.  Or is it the other way around?

Edited July 26, 2021 by Stormin' Mormon

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

See here (from March 2021) :

I think this is very good news.  I am happy to see intolerant bullies in academia get their comeuppance.

I am really happy to see qualified immunity not protect the individual players.  These yahoos have been using academic institutions to advance their unlawful behavior, and then run and hide behind qualified immunity to protect themselves and their assets when such unlawful behavior is challenged and rebutted.

See also this update (from July25) : 

Again, I am really happy to see qualified immunity not protect the individual players.

I hope this case reverberates throughout academia.  Bigly.  It is, in my view, a significant win for religious liberty in America.

....................

The extreme Left and the extreme Right are completely mercenary and transactional in their contempt for the Constitution and rule of law.  This will make no difference to them.

[smac97]

50 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The extreme Left and the extreme Right are completely mercenary and transactional in their contempt for the Constitution and rule of law.  This will make no difference to them.

You don't think the removal of qualified immunity will make a difference?  Hitting them in the wallet?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

See here (from March 2021) :

I think this is very good news.  I am happy to see intolerant bullies in academia get their comeuppance.

I am really happy to see qualified immunity not protect the individual players.  These yahoos have been using academic institutions to advance their unlawful behavior, and then run and hide behind qualified immunity to protect themselves and their assets when such unlawful behavior is challenged and rebutted.

See also this update (from July25) : 

Again, I am really happy to see qualified immunity not protect the individual players.

I hope this case reverberates throughout academia.  Bigly.  It is, in my view, a significant win for religious liberty in America.

Thanks,

-Smac

Hurrah for the First Amendment! Hurrah for religious liberty!

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

And then the First Amendment loses in the 10th circuit.

https://reason.com/volokh/2021/07/26/2-1-decision-holds-web-site-designer-may-be-required-to-design-site-for-same-sex-weddings/

 

Two steps forward, one step back.  Or is it the other way around?

From Volokh's commentary:

Quote

At first glance, this appears to be inconsistent with the Eighth Circuit's decision in Telescope Media Group v. Lucero, which upheld videographers' right not to create videos of same-sex weddings. I expect this circuit split will make this a good candidate for Supreme Court review—unlike Masterpiece Cakeshop, this case indubitably involves the creation of speech, and not just of a wedding cake, so it squarely tees up the compelled-creation-of-speech issue. (There's also a religious freedom issue present as well, though I don't think there's a square split of authority on that particular subject, since the Arizona calligraphers' case, which upheld a religious freedom objection, focused on Arizona's religious freedom statute, not the federal Free Exercise Clause.)

A 2-1 decision on a circuit-split issue that tees the issue up for SCOTUS review is, perhaps, something to not be disheartened about (though the prospective SCOTUS review may not reach the Free Exercise issue).

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

Can this be used to strip police of qualified immunity?

[JustAnAustralian]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

A 2-1 decision on a circuit-split issue that tees the issue up for SCOTUS review

That would require SCOTUS to actually have the guts to finally make a decision on something like this.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Can this be used to strip police of qualified immunity?

I think qualified immunity should A) be codified (at the state level), rather than used as a judicially-created doctrine, and B) should be limited to law enforcement and first responders who - unlike yahoos in the academy - are sometimes required to make split-second decisions in emergent, heat-of-the-moment circumstances.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think qualified immunity should A) be codified (at the state level), rather than used as a judicially-created doctrine, and B) should be limited to law enforcement and first responders who - unlike yahoos in the academy - are sometimes required to make split-second decisions in emergent, heat-of-the-moment circumstances.

Thanks,

-Smac

Nah.

[Robert F. Smith]

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

You don't think the removal of qualified immunity will make a difference?  Hitting them in the wallet?

Thanks,

-Smac

Nope.  They'll just find some other way to attack.

[LoudmouthMormon]

My family has been on the receiving end of religious discrimination from a Christian organization.   It was a Christian-based homeschool educational cooperative run out of our local mega-church.  We involved our kids there for 4-5 years.  It was a large social event, as the mommies brought their kiddos and sent them to classes, while the moms talked and socialized and worked on laptops and whatnot.

They all loved my wife and daughters, and when they found out we were LDS, they loved us even more.  The one single instance of someone having a problem with Joseph Smith resulted in that person being taken away and educated about Christlike love, while wife and kids were almost drowned with an increase of love-bombing that would give the best Relief Society fellowshipping event a run for it's money.

My wife was so popular, there were numerous requests that she sign up to teach a few classes.   We reviewed the "statement of faith" she would have to sign, and most of the dozen-or-so points were no problem, but we just couldn't jump on board with the one dealing with affirming the Trinity and accepting truth found in the Nicene council as binding.  We let them know.  They were sad my wife couldn't teach.  They continued to love bomb us.

Moral of the story:  Discrimination isn't always a bad thing.

[The Nehor]

Pretty clear here that the First Amendment was a bit of a mistake.

(Now to see if the experiment works)