The U.S. Supreme Court�s ruling on Monday that a public law school can deny recognition to a Christian student group requiring members to affirm a set of religious beliefs could have serious ramifications for Orthodox Jewish groups, according to attorneys for Agudath Israel of America.�
In its 5-4 ruling, the Court rejected an appeal of a lower court decision by the Christian Legal Society, a Christian student group at a state-run law school in California that was informed by school administrators that it cannot be considered a recognized student organization if it continues to restrict membership to declared Christians only.� The majority opinion, written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, upheld lower court rulings that the Christian group�s First Amendment rights of association, free speech and free exercise of religion were not violated by the college�s decision.
A number of Orthodox Jewish groups � including Agudath Israel of America, the Orthodox Union and the National Council of Young Israel � had submitted friend of the court briefs in support of the Christian Legal Society, despite the fact that their constituents would not be allowed membership in the Christian group.� The Orthodox groups forcefully defended the right of religious groups to �discriminate� on the basis of their deeply held religious beliefs.�
While the Orthodox groups� argument did not carry the day, they did attract notice.� Most notably, in his dissenting opinion, Justice Samuel Alito referenced Agudath Israel�s brief twice, once in the context of pointing out that many religious groups restrict membership to people sharing the group�s faith; and a second time in an expression of concern that the ruling of the majority would, in the Agudath Israel brief�s quoted words, �point a judicial dagger at the heart of the Orthodox community in the United States� and allow that community to be relegated to the status of �a second-class group.� Justice Alito called the decision a �serious setback for freedom of expression in this country.�
Providing some solace for religious groups, though, is the fact that the ruling is a narrow one, relating only to state-run universities, and only to those that have a policy requiring student groups to accept �all comers.�� More common on university campuses and in other contexts are nondiscrimination policies that seek to protect specific groups of people.� The issue of whether the Court would consider such more specific policies as trumping the religious rights of a group was not addressed in the recent ruling.
Says Rabbi Chaim Dovid Zwiebel, Agudath Israel�s executive vice president: �Without question, the Court�s decision is a serious setback for religious freedom.� We are hopeful, however, that this decision will not lead government and government-supported institutions to take steps to relegate those who hold traditional religious beliefs to �second class status� and deny them benefits and opportunities because of their adherence to their faith.�
The Agudath leader thanked attorneys Jeffrey Zuckerman, Dora Straus, and Julie Arkush of Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle LLP for drafting the amicus brief submitted by Agudath Israel.� �We are pleased that their fine and eloquent work was recognized and cited in the dissenting opinion, and thank them for a job very well done.�
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
One Response
It has no ramifications. It means that any student group has to be open to all students. You can still have a group of campus fascists – if they let anyone join. Or campus Democrats, if they let anyone join. Just as the campus Democrats can keep Republicans from interfering, a Jewish group can keep “Reform Jews” from interfering. However the argument that failed was that a group can exclude people from membership based on a “test”.
It will have no impact on anyone.