Supreme Court Blocks Recognition of LGBTQ Campus At Yeshiva University


The Supreme Court has temporarily blocked a court order that would have forced Yeshiva University to recognize an LGBTQ group as an official campus club.

The court acted Friday in a brief order signed by Justice Sonia Sotomayor that indicated the court would have more to say on the topic at some point.

YU argued that granting recognition to the group, the YU Pride Alliance, “would violate its sincere religious beliefs.”

On the other side, the club said YU already has recognized a gay pride club at its law school.

A New York state court sided with the student group and ordered the university to recognize the club immediately. The matter is on appeal in the state court system, but judges there refused to put the order on hold in the meantime.

The Supreme Court has been very receptive to religious freedom claims in recent years.

In June, conservatives who hold a 6-3 majority struck down a Maine program prohibiting state funds from being spent at religious schools and ruled a high school football coach in Washington state has the right to pray on the field after games.



  1. A New York state court sided with the student group Tough luck hochul:- Supreme court is more righteous than you, just like on gun control 2nd amendment they are also smarter than you.

    As for YU:- I have no-doubt taht Rav מלך Schachter זצקללה”ה was the מליץ-יושר that inspired the Supreme Court to side with קריאת התורה ליום-כיפור מנחה aptly calling this horrible act a תועבה

  2. Sotomayer herself is acting entirely in an administrative role for her colleagues and her action simply indicates that 4 or 5 justices believe the cases warrants further consideration. She generally leans against granting these types of requests and is especially predisposed against granting cert for cases that have not been heard by one of the circuits.

  3. Signed by Rebbetzin Sonia? Wait, the libbies are on board too? That’s great! And what type of ruling was this? Was it one of those things where just one justice gives this sort of temporary ruling, and it happened to be her? Or was this a temporary ruling of the whole court?
    Someone explain…

  4. This is a problem of YU’s own making and they deserve it. Any normal yeshiva or religious institution would have expelled these students for making an official stand of their violation of a chayvie krisohs. In response to the stay by the court they issued a statement saying the ruling “protects Yeshiva’s First Amendment rights and ability to conduct its internal affairs consistent with its religious values,” and went on to state “but make no mistake, we will continue to strive to create an environment that welcomes all students, including those of our LGBTQ community”. Welcoming students of “our LGBTQ community” is not at all consistent with the religious values it claims to be fighting to uphold. In fact their position of being welcoming to them while claiming allowing them to form a group is inconsistent with their values makes no sense at all.

  5. I can see that nobody here has read Judge Kotler’s original decision on this, and therefore nobody seems to understand what the case is about.

    The entire case is about whether YU is a religious institution. There is NO QUESTION that a religious institution does not have to allow such a club. But the problem is that 55 years ago YU split from RIETS and declared itself a secular institution. It did this in order to qualify for government grants that at that time were not available to religious institutions. This was effectively a case of כתבו לכם על קרן השור. At the time many people were upset and predicted that it would eventually come back to bite them, and now it has.

    In her decision Judge Kotler told YU that it can’t have it both ways. Either it continues as a secular institution, in which case it must obey the law just like every other secular institution, OR it amends its charter and bylaws to openly declare that it is a religious institution and יש לה חלק באלקי ישראל, in which case it will be entitled to the same exemptions and accommodations as all other religious institution.

  6. Regardless of how they define themselves, homo-fascist woke NYC bureaucrats have absolutely no right under the US Constitution to be dictating to a private school its ethical and religious operating principles.

    Anti-religious, totalitarian government overreach by these woke homo-fascists must be aggressively fought using all legal means.

  7. Rightjew: Grow up and read Milhouse’s post. There are narrow substantive and procedural legal issues operative here. The underlying issue of how far the government can go in conditioning government funding for religious and private institutions is still unsettled law, although the SCOTUS decision several months ago in the Maine school voucher case would seem to imply that such restrictions have to be very narrowly structured.