Advanced

Business Leaders in Christ v. The University of Iowa

December 2017
University of Iowa (Public college or university)
Iowa City, IA

Identity of Speakers

  • Marcus Miller
    Student
    Other

    Marcus Miller was a business student at the University of Iowa. He was denied an executive position in the Business Leaders in Christ on the basis of his sexual orientation

  • Dr. William Nelson
    Faculty/Staff
    Other

    Dr. William Nelson was an administrator at the University of Iowa who was responsible for ensuring that Registered Student Organizations complied with University policies

Additional Information

  • Incident Nature:
    Other
  • Incident Political Orientation:
    Not Clear
  • Incident Responses:
    University investigation issuing in sanctions
  • Incident Status:
    In litigation Federal District Court
    In litigation Federal Court of Appeals
    Appealed
  • No protest Occured
  • Was Speech Code incident

Summary

On December 11, 2017, Business Leaders in Christ filed a federal lawsuit against University of Iowa after the University revoked the group’s status as a registered student organization (RSO). RSOs received University funding and access to facilities but had to comply with University policies, including the Human Rights Policy prohibiting discrimination based on protected characteristics. The lawsuit alleged that the University selectively enforced this policy against the organization in violation of its First Amendment rights to free speech, expressive association, and free exercise of religion.

The dispute began in the spring of 2014, when business students formed the organization and registered it as an RSO that fall. The group required leaders to affirm and live according to a Christian statement of faith. In March 2016, Marcus Miller, a member seeking a leadership position, disclosed that he thought he was gay and wished to engage in same-sex relationships. Hannah Thompson, the group’s president, discussed Miller’s candidacy with the executive board, which concluded that he fundamentally disagreed with the group’s teachings. Thompson informed Miller that he could not serve on the executive board unless he agreed to refrain from same-sex relationships, and when he refused, his candidacy was denied. Miller subsequently filed a complaint with the University on February 20, 2017, alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation.

During the investigation, BLC members argued that they had rejected Miller based on his conduct and disagreement with group teachings, not status. Dr. William Nelson, the University official responsible for registering student organizations, clarified that BLC could restrict leadership based on beliefs or conduct but not on protected status. The group amended its constitution to include a Statement of Faith defining its religious views on marriage and sexuality. Dr. Lyn Redington, Assistant Vice President and Dean of Students, rejected BLC’s appeal after the University concluded the revised constitution still violated the Human Rights Policy. In January 2018, the University conducted a broader review of RSOs to ensure compliance with its policies, suspending some organizations while allowing others to retain recognition. On January 19, 2018, a federal court temporarily reinstated BLC for ninety days, finding the University had enforced its policy inconsistently across student organizations.

On February 6, 2019, the district court ruled that the University had violated BLC’s constitutional rights by selectively enforcing the policy and permanently enjoined the University from discriminating against the group, though certain officials were initially granted qualified immunity. On March 22, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that University officials could be held personally liable for viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment. Settlement payments totaling approximately 1.9 million dollars were approved in late 2021 to resolve this and related litigation. On April 23, 2025, the Eighth Circuit reaffirmed that University officials were not entitled to qualified immunity, returning remaining claims to the district court for further proceedings regarding damages and compliance.