The Freedom From Religion Foundation is seeking to file a friend-of-the-court brief that sides with the state of Minnesota over anti-discrimination rules that religious institutions have legally challenged.
“Two religious colleges have sued the Walz administration because of language in the education budget that prohibits schools from requiring ‘faith statements’ from students applying for a program that lets them earn college credits while in high school,” a Minnesota TV station reported last year. “Two families with children eligible for the Postsecondary Enrollment Options program claim they won’t be able to use funds from that program at Crown College in St. Bonifacius or the University of Northwestern-St. Paul because those schools require all students on campus ‘share their Christian beliefs.’”
FFRF is filing a proposed brief today, Sept. 10, with the U.S. District Court of Minnesota to help defend Minnesota’s anti-discrimination rules.
“The state’s nondiscrimination rules for colleges that apply for Postsecondary Enrollment Options public funding are legitimate constitutional means to ensure students’ access to education,” the brief states. “Crown and Northwestern seek an incorrect, harmful and unprecedented interpretation of the First Amendment.”
Crown and Northwestern are petitioning the court to create a special carveout, the brief adds, by seeking the legal right to mandate that students sign divisive declarations of faith in order to participate in the state-funded, secular Postsecondary Enrollment Options education program. Crown and Northwestern are additionally asking the court to declare that they may accept or deny students’ applications based on students’ sexual orientation, gender identity and religion.
The colleges had implemented religious and divisive declarations of faith for students to sign. These included the statement, “We believe it is our duty, honor and delight to live under the Lordship of Christ.” Students had to acknowledge that they “can be saved only through the atoning work of the Lord Jesus Christ.”
Students also needed to affirm the school’s position that marriage is a “covenant between one man and one woman” and that same-sex relationships are “sexual immorality” and “perversions of God’s intended purposes.” Students were required to agree with the following statement: “We do not affirm or support transgender identity or expression. Instead, we place our faith and trust in God’s redemptive plan.”
The state of Minnesota has an interest in eliminating discrimination on the basis of religion, sexual orientation and gender identity to ensure that publicly funded education is open to all students, FFRF points out. That’s why the state may set neutral and generally applicable nondiscrimination conditions on education programs that it funds. And private entities that seek to obtain state funding and access to public school students are reasonably required to abide by certain conditions for state funding. The Supreme Court has held that neutral and generally applicable laws are not subject to constitutional strict scrutiny under the Free Exercise Clause.
“The state has a significant interest in not funding and perpetuating discrimination in publicly funded education programs,” the brief stresses. “Eliminating discrimination in education is a compelling government interest.”
State-sanctioned discrimination is antithetical to the American public education system. In recognition of these principles, for more than half a century courts and legislatures have routinely expanded access and opportunities for education and created standards to promote equal opportunity as a consistent focus of federal education policy.
“Plaintiffs want to accept public money but avoid the neutral, generally applicable rules that attach,” FFRF’s brief concludes. “The special religious exemption they seek would severely undermine the state’s efforts and legitimate, compelling interest in ensuring equality in public education programs.”
For all of the above reasons, FFRF contends, the U.S. District Court of Minnesota should grant summary judgment in favor of the state.
FFRF Legal Director Patrick Elliott is the counsel of record for the brief. Legal intern Grace Kraimer and Staff Attorney Sammi Lawrence assisted in the research and drafting of the brief.
“Religious schools shouldn’t be allowed to discriminate against public school students while accepting public money,” says Elliott. “FFRF’s brief will shine a light on why the schools’ arguments are both wrong and potentially harmful to Minnesota’s public school students.”
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a national nonprofit organization with 40,000 members and several chapters across the country, including almost 900 members in Minnesota and two local chapters in the state. FFRF’s purposes are to protect the constitutional principle of separation between state and church, and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.
