On judicial review of a regulator’s refusal to approve a proposed law school with a mandatory religious covenant, the appellate court addressed statutory authority, administrative reasonableness, and constitutional balancing.
The majority held the regulator could consider barrier effects on equal access, diversity, and public confidence when assessing the public interest, and could proceed through its chosen member-vote process.
Applying the Doré/Loyola framework, the court found a proportionate balance between limited religious freedom impacts and significant equality-related statutory objectives.
The regulator’s non-approval decision was restored.
