Decision blocks state effort to ban religious colleges from requiring faith statements for dual-credit students, setting up likely appeal.
What this is: This article covers a federal judge’s August 22, 2025, ruling striking down Minnesota’s 2023 law that barred religious colleges from requiring faith statements in admissions under the state’s Postsecondary Enrollment Options (PSEO) program. It explains the background of the PSEO program, the legal challenge brought by Crown College, the University of Northwestern–St. Paul, and several families, and the Minnesota Department of Education’s counterclaims. The piece discusses why the court ruled the amendment unconstitutional, analyzes whether this outcome gives religious schools a “second benefit” by allowing them both public funding and faith-based admissions, and explores how secular values would be treated differently under constitutional law. It also includes accessible sidebars on Supreme Court precedent, the “double benefit” debate, the likely path of appeal in the Eighth Circuit, and what could happen if the case reaches the Supreme Court.
On August 22, 2025, a federal judge in Minnesota struck down a 2023 state law that restricted how religious colleges could participate in the state’s Postsecondary Enrollment Options (PSEO) program. The ruling preserves the ability of faith-based colleges to require incoming students to sign statements of faith while continuing to receive public reimbursement for dual-credit instruction.
The law was passed in 2023 as part of an omnibus education bill signed by Governor Tim Walz. It included two provisions: the “Faith Statement Ban,” which barred colleges from requiring students to pledge adherence to religious doctrine as a condition of admission, and the “Nondiscrimination Requirement,” which prohibited schools from considering religion, sexual orientation, gender, or creed in PSEO admissions decisions.
Two colleges, Crown College and the University of Northwestern–St. Paul, along with several families whose children wanted to enroll in those institutions, challenged the law as unconstitutional. They argued that the state had unfairly conditioned access to a generally available public benefit on the surrender of religious practices.
The Minnesota Department of Education (MDE), led by Commissioner Willie Jett, defended the law and went further by filing counterclaims. MDE argued that the colleges’ admissions policies themselves were unconstitutional and violated the Minnesota Human Rights Act by discriminating against LGBTQ students.
Judge Nancy Brasel rejected the state’s arguments. She ruled that the Faith Statement Ban violated the Free Exercise Clause of the U.S. Constitution and the Freedom of Conscience Clause of the Minnesota Constitution. Because the ban was not separable from the nondiscrimination provision, she struck down the amendment in its entirety. The court also dismissed MDE’s counterclaims, finding the agency lacked standing to assert constitutional claims against the colleges and that its statutory claims under the Human Rights Act failed on the merits .
The outcome preserves the status quo for colleges that integrate faith into their admissions standards. Between 2017 and 2023, Crown College received more than $5.7 million in public reimbursements for PSEO courses, while the University of Northwestern–St. Paul received over $33 million . Both institutions require on-campus students to sign commitments affirming Christian doctrine, including pledges regarding marriage and sexuality.
Why the Case Matters
The PSEO program, created in 1985, allows Minnesota high school juniors and seniors to earn college credit for free at public or private institutions. While the law has long barred funding for sectarian courses, it never prohibited private colleges from imposing faith-based admissions standards. Complaints from families and advocacy groups led MDE to press for reform, and lawmakers eventually adopted the 2023 amendment.
At the heart of the legal dispute is whether religious colleges can continue to receive public funds while limiting access to students who agree to religious standards. The judge’s ruling effectively says yes: religious schools cannot be forced to give up their doctrinal requirements as a condition for participating in a public benefit program.
Explainer – What the Supreme Court Has Said Before
Over the past decade, the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that states may not exclude religious schools from generally available programs.
-
Trinity Lutheran v. Comer (2017): Missouri could not bar a church-run preschool from receiving state funds for playground resurfacing.
-
Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue (2020): Montana could not exclude religious schools from a tax-credit scholarship program.
-
Carson v. Makin (2022): Maine could not deny tuition reimbursement to families who wanted to send their children to religious schools.
-
303 Creative v. Elenis (2023): The Court extended protections to a business owner who declined to create same-sex wedding websites, emphasizing free speech and religious rights.
Together, these decisions have reshaped the landscape, signaling that conditioning public benefits on giving up religious practices is unconstitutional.
Do Religious Schools Receive a “Second Benefit”?
The Minnesota case highlights a tension. Religious schools already receive the same reimbursements as other colleges under PSEO. But unlike public or secular institutions, they can maintain admissions policies based on religious doctrine while still taking part in the program. Critics say this amounts to a second benefit: public money plus exemption from nondiscrimination standards.
Supporters respond that this is not a special advantage but equal treatment. Religious schools argue they should not be excluded simply for being religious. They claim that forcing them to abandon their faith commitments would itself be discriminatory.
The court embraced this latter view, echoing Supreme Court language that the First Amendment gives “special solicitude” to religious organizations. That reasoning means religious schools are treated differently, but not because they are favored. Rather, they are shielded from government rules that would compel them to act against their beliefs.
For some observers, this creates an uneven playing field. Secular institutions cannot impose ideological tests on applicants and still participate in PSEO. Religious schools can. Whether this is equality or a double benefit will be central if the case moves up on appeal.
Explainer – The “Double Benefit” Debate
Benefit One: Religious colleges receive public reimbursement for dual-credit courses.
Benefit Two: They may require students to sign faith commitments while participating.
The Debate:
-
Critics: This allows exclusionary admissions with public money.
-
Supporters: This ensures religious institutions are not penalized for their faith.
The Supreme Court has consistently treated attempts to limit faith-based participation in public programs as unconstitutional penalties on religion.
How the Eighth Circuit Might Handle the Case
If Minnesota appeals, the case will go to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. That court has applied Supreme Court precedent in favor of religious institutions. In Peace Lutheran Church v. Minnesota Department of Human Services (2021), for example, the Eighth Circuit sided with a church-run preschool seeking access to a childcare program, citing Trinity Lutheran.
The Eighth Circuit tends to scrutinize whether laws actually burden religious practice. Minnesota will likely argue that religious schools cannot both accept public funds and exclude students. The colleges will argue that Minnesota targeted religion by forcing them to change their identity.
Given recent precedent, the Eighth Circuit may well affirm the ruling, though it could pay closer attention to the balance between neutrality and nondiscrimination.
Explainer – What Happens If It Reaches the Supreme Court?
1. Recent Pattern: The Court has barred states from excluding religious schools from public programs.
2. Free Speech Overlap: 303 Creative showed the Court’s willingness to side with religious expression over nondiscrimination laws.
3. The Key Question: Is allowing faith-based admissions with public money neutrality or favoritism?
4. Likely Outcome: The Court’s majority would probably rule that Minnesota’s law unconstitutionally targeted religion.
Religious vs. Secular Commitments
An additional question is whether secular values would receive the same protection. Imagine a secular college requiring applicants to write an essay defending Darwinian evolution or supporting abortion rights. Would that be protected in the same way as a faith-based admissions policy?
The answer is no. Religious exercise has a special constitutional status under the Free Exercise Clause. Secular ideological requirements would fall under free speech analysis, which does not grant institutions the same broad protections.
A student rejected by a secular college for failing to take a specific position on evolution or abortion could argue that the requirement violated their free speech rights. But courts would not treat the institution’s demand as protected by the First Amendment in the way that religious commitments are. The law draws a line: religious belief receives unique protection, while secular ideology does not.
Explainer – Religious vs. Secular Protection
-
Religious Commitments: Protected by the Free Exercise Clause. States cannot condition benefits on giving them up.
-
Secular Ideological Commitments: Protected mainly by the Free Speech Clause. Do not receive the same heightened protection.
-
Example: A student rejected for refusing to affirm faith commitments may challenge the state, but a student rejected for refusing to affirm a secular viewpoint would challenge the school. The outcomes are different because of constitutional structure.
Looking Ahead
The Minnesota Department of Education has not yet announced whether it will appeal, but the case is likely headed for the Eighth Circuit and possibly the Supreme Court. For now, Crown College, the University of Northwestern–St. Paul, and other faith-based colleges may continue requiring faith statements from on-campus students while still receiving state reimbursement for PSEO participation.
The ruling does not resolve the deeper questions about whether this gives religious institutions a double advantage or whether secular values deserve equal protection. Those questions will almost certainly be tested again in higher courts.
Tags: Minnesota PSEO program, Crown College lawsuit, University of Northwestern St. Paul, Willie Jett, Free Exercise Clause
TL:DR
A federal judge in Minnesota struck down a 2023 law that restricted faith-based colleges from requiring faith statements in student admissions under the state’s Postsecondary Enrollment Options (PSEO) program. The amendment, signed by Governor Tim Walz, was intended to prevent religious schools from conditioning enrollment on religious commitments. Crown College, the University of Northwestern–St. Paul, and several families challenged the law, arguing it violated their constitutional rights. On August 22, 2025, Judge Nancy Brasel ruled that the amendment infringed the Free Exercise Clause of the U.S. Constitution and Minnesota’s Freedom of Conscience Clause. The ruling invalidates the law in its entirety, rejecting counterclaims from the Minnesota Department of Education. The case is likely to be appealed to the Eighth Circuit, with potential review by the Supreme Court.
Link to decision: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-mnd-0_23-cv-01527/pdf/USCOURTS-mnd-0_23-cv-01527-0.pdf
AI Disclaimer: This article was prepared with the assistance of AI based on court filings and legal precedent.