ACLJ Represents Christian Campus Groups in Urging Supreme Court to Protect Constitutional Rights of Religious Organizations

(Washington, DC) The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), focusing on constitutional law, today filed an amicus brief on behalf of numerous Christian campus organizations urging the Supreme Court of the United States to protect the constitutional rights of religious groups to set membership and leadership criteria according to the dictates of their religious beliefs.  The ACLJ is asking the high court to overturn an appeals court decision that upheld a California law schools denial of official recognition of a Christian student group. The Christian group refused to agree to let non-Christians to become voting members or leaders.

It is fundamental to religious freedom that religious groups are free to define their own mission, select their own leaders and determine their own membership criteria, said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ. The First Amendment protections afforded to religious organizations are clear.  The appeals court decision discriminates against religion, undermines Supreme Court precedent, and injects the government into an area that the Constitution forbids.  Were hopeful the Supreme Court will reverse the decision of the Ninth Circuit.

The case involves a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit siding with the Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco. Hastings denied official recognition to a student group the Christian Legal Society (CLS) after CLS said it could not abide by the schools non-discrimination policy. That policy forbids student groups from discriminating on the basis of, among other things, religion. CLS says its religious beliefs prevent non-Christians from exercising control over the group by becoming voting members or serving in leadership positions.

In its amicus brief filed at the high court, the ACLJ contends that religious groups are constitutionally protected in following their religious beliefs.

Religious groups by their nature embrace religious principles and, as a matter of organizational identity and coherence, will normally require adherence to such principles as a criterion for membership and certainly for leadership, the brief contends.  This is not discrimination but rather part and parcel of what defines them as religious groups.  Wooden application of religious non-discrimination policies therefore forces religious groups to choose between their religious identity and access to the forum.  That choice is an unconstitutional one between yielding to government intermeddling and no access at all.  Far from a permissible condition on benefits, this is a choice that the government, under the Religion Clauses, has no business imposing on religious groups.

The ACLJ concludes that the appeals court decision violates the constitutional protections afforded to religious groups and must be reversed.

A policy of non-discrimination by the government promotes a wholesome neutrality.  But when the government extends that same policy to private religious groups and directs them not to discriminate on religious grounds, it strays into forbidden territory.  Such a policy inevitably undermines the Courts equal access cases, discriminates against religion, and injects the government into mattersthe leadership and membership criteria of religious groupsthat the Religion Clauses put squarely out of bounds.  The judgment of the Court of Appeals should be reversed.

You can read the ACLJ amicus brief here. 

The ACLJ represents more than a dozen Christian leaders and organizations active on college and university campuses including Fellowship of Christian Athletes, Campus Crusade for Christ, Intervarsity Christian Fellowship, Young Life, The Navigators, and Fellowship of Catholic University Students.  The case is Christian Legal Society v. Martinez. 

Led by Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow, the American Center for Law and Justice focuses on constitutional law and is based in Washington, D.C.