New York appellate court rules Yeshiva University must recognize LGBTQ club

---

The Appellate Division of Manhattan unanimously held that Yeshiva University had to formally recognize an LGBTQ student organization, despite the university’s claim that the club conflicted with its religious liberty. 

Key Players

Yeshiva University (YU), a private, Manhattan-based institution, religiously affiliated with Modern Orthodox Judaism, has served as a secular university since 1969. 

Yeshiva University Pride Alliance was founded in 2019 as an unofficial club meant to serve as a safe space for LGBTQ students. YU Pride Alliance was denied official club status three times before it took legal action. 

Further Details

In February 2019, YU students received approval to form a Gay-Straight Alliance from student council presidents, the traditional authority for club creation, according to YU’s on-campus newspaper, The Commentator. But university officials overruled the decision and rejected the application for club status. 

In January 2020, the group reapplied under the name YU Alliance, intentionally avoiding the use of the word “gay” in the title, but it was once again denied.

In September 2020, after YU Alliance filed for official club recognition a third time, YU listed a series of initiatives to foster “an inclusive community of belonging” on campus, but stated that “The message of Torah on this issue is nuanced,” and “Forming a new club as requested under the auspices of YU will cloud this nuanced message.”

On April 26, 2021, the students of YU Pride Alliance filed a lawsuit in New York County Supreme Court (a trial court), alleging discrimination after the administration’s third refusal to recognize the club. The group asserted that YU had violated the New York City Human Rights Law, which prohibits discrimination for sexual orientation in employment, housing, and public accommodations, The Washington Post reported.  

YU told The Post its “Torah-guided decision about this club in no way minimizes the care and sensitivity” it has for LGBTQ students. 

Ultimately, the New York County Supreme Court ruled in favor of the YU Pride Alliance, determining that YU did not fit the legal standards for a “religious corporation.” 

Judge Lynn Kotler denied that the formation of the YU Pride Alliance infringed upon the religious liberties granted to the institution, as “the purpose students attend Yeshiva is to obtain an education, not for religious worship.” She noted that the school’s own 1967 charter labeled itself as being “organized and operated exclusively for educational purposes,” effectively establishing that YU did not qualify for a religious exemption. 

Kotler also asserted that enforcement of the city’s human rights law and the First Amendment are not incompatible, since “formal recognition of a student group does not equate to endorsement with that group’s message.” YU was mandated to offer the alliance full and equal privileges afforded to all other student organizations.

The YU Pride Alliance hailed the decision as a “huge and historic win for equality” on its Facebook page.  

Outcome

YU seeks emergency relief

At the start of the fall 2022 semester, YU filed for an emergency relief order with the U.S. Supreme Court to stop the state court ruling from taking effect before club activity resumed on campus, The New York Times reported. 

In a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court denied the school’s request, as YU did not first seek either expedited review or interim relief with the New York Court of Appeals. 

In dissent, Justice Samuel Alito warned that the ruling ignored how the First Amendment “prohibits a State from enforcing its own preferred interpretation of Holy Scripture.” Alito argued that forcing YU to recognize a club that disagreed with its interpretation of the Torah, even temporarily, constituted an “irreparable harm.” 

Yeshiva Shuts Down All Campus Clubs

In response to the Supreme Court’s decision, YU halted all undergraduate club activity, The Post reported. In an email to students, the administration wrote that no clubs would operate while the school took “steps to follow the roadmap provided by the US Supreme Court to protect YU’s religious freedom.” 

Katie Rosenfeld, a lawyer for YU Pride Alliance, denounced the administration’s actions as “attempts to divide the student body, and pit students against their LGBT peers.” 

YU Pride Alliance Concedes to a Deal

On Sept. 21, YU Pride Alliance agreed to a stay of the New York County Supreme Court ruling, meaning the alliance would come to a temporary halt pending if YU would pursue an appeal in the state court system, The Post reported. 

“We are agreeing to this stay while the case moves through the New York courts because we do not want YU to punish our fellow students by ending all student activities while it circumvents its responsibilities,” the group stated, adding that YU was “attempting to hold all of its students hostage while it deploys manipulative legal tactics, all in an effort to avoid treating our club equally.”  

State appellate court rules YU must recognize Pride Alliance 

On Dec. 15, the Appellate Division of Manhattan unanimously ruled that YU had to formally recognize the club, upholding the decision of the lower state court, Reuters reported.  

The previous ruling “correctly held that Yeshiva does not meet the definition of ‘religious corporation incorporated under the education law or the religious corporation law,’” the four-judge panel wrote. The court also rejected claims that the club violated the school’s free exercise of religion and freedom of expression.  

Rosenfeld said the ruling affirmed that YU could not “discriminate against its LGBTQ+ students by continuing its refusal to recognize the YU Pride Alliance,” adding that she hoped that YU would “accept the Pride Alliance’s invitation to resolve the lawsuit by finally recognizing an authentic, student-run, mutually acceptable LGBTQ undergraduate student club that operates like all other clubs at YU,” The Commentator reported.

Hanan Eisenman, a YU spokesperson, called the ruling a disappointment, saying the school would “continue on appeal to defend against the claim that we are not a religious institution.” 

As of Jan. 6, 2023, there were no further developments.