a🗽

This is a fascinating case. Private institutions should have real autonomy. Don’t like their uniform rules? Don’t send your kids there. That’s how freedom of choice and association actually work. Forcing religious accommodations on unwilling private schools via litigation just breeds resentment on all sides. That said, this goes beyond Hijab. It’s about the blurry line between truly private entities and those with deep government ties. Can an institution sit on federal government land, use a prestigious federal university’s name and brand, enjoy the physical security and infrastructure of a federal campus and still claim it owes nothing to the federal government and should be treated as fully private? This creates a perception of public character and gives ISI prestige and indirect benefits but doesn’t that make it at least a “quasi-public” school with constitutional obligations under S. 38 & 42 of 1999 CFRN as amended? I think so because these benefits aren’t trivial. I personally think the Court of Appeal got it right on current tests but if the Supreme Court takes a broader, more purposive approach looking at the overall character, benefits derived from federal assets, and the public facing nature of the institution, it may overturn the judgment. The Court has shown willingness to expansively protect religious rights in the 2022 hijab case and they could do this here again by demanding for more evidence on the exact legal relationship between UI and ISI. ISI’s got strong argument as well that it is school fees funded, independently governed by its board of governors and not reliant on taxpayer subventions like core public schools. Location or loose affiliation doesn’t automatically strip private status as many entities use government premises without losing it. Either way, this is really about where we draw the line between private autonomy and public accountability when institutions leverage government prestige. Can’t wait to see how SC rules.