Summary judgment based on qualified immunity for the defts was in error, since it was clearly established in both Supreme Court and Circuit precedent that university organizations were limited public forums not to be subjected to unreasonable or viewpoint-based discrimination. The fact that the policy was unevenly enforced actually reinforces the suggestion of viewpoint discrimination.
As similar cases have been decided on Free Speech grounds, though, the relevant law on Free Exercise was not clearly established.
CONCURRENCE/DISSENT:
Unequal enforcement precludes a finding of facially neutral law of general applicability; the Free Exercise right was sufficiently clearly established.