PRIDE CENTER OF TERRE HAUTE, INC. v. INDIANA STATE UNIVERSITY VICE PRESIDENT FOR UNIVERSITY ENGAGEMENT et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
TERRE HAUTE DIVISION
PRIDE CENTER OF TERRE HAUTE, INC., )
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 2:25-cv-00445-JPH-MG
)
INDIANA STATE UNIVERSITY VICE
PRESIDENT FOR UNIVERSITY
ENGAGEMENT,
)
)
)
INDIANA STATE UNIVERSITY
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CAREER
SERVICES,
)
)
)
)
Defendants. 	)
ORDER DENYING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
The Pride Center of Terre Haute is a non-profit organization located near
the campus of Indiana State University that was established to support and
advocate for the LGBTQ+ community in the greater Terre Haute area. 	The
Pride Center's paid employees—ISU students participating in a work-study
program involving government funds administered through ISU—are required
to be "LGBTQIAP+ affirming." 	ISU recently ended its work-study partnership
with the Pride Center, so ISU students are no longer able to work there as part
of the work-study program. 	The Pride Center alleges that ISU's decision was
motived by viewpoint discrimination and therefore violated the First
Amendment. 	The Pride Center seeks a preliminary injunction that would
require ISU to reinstate work-study funding for the Pride Center's student
employees. 	Dkt. [11]. 	As discussed below, the Pride Center is not likely to be
able to show that ISU discriminated against it because of the Pride Center's
Case 2:25-cv-00445-JPH-MG Document 28 Filed 01/21/26 Page 1 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
viewpoint supporting LGBTQ+ people. 	Therefore, its motion for a preliminary
injunction is DENIED.
I.
Facts and Background
The parties have filed affidavits and other documentary evidence, the
relevant parts of which are uncontested, so these facts are based on that
designated evidence. 	See dkt. 20; dkt. 24.1
The Pride Center is a non-profit in Terre Haute that "advocates for and
provides support and resources to the LGBTQ+ community in the greater Terre
Haute area." 	Dkt. 20-1 at 1–2 (declaration of Pride Center President-elect Ian
Braly). 	The Pride Center's services are open to anyone and include facilitating
STI testing and hosting activities like educational seminars, game nights, trivia
contests, and baking classes. 	Id. at 2. 	The Pride Center opened in 2021 and
was staffed in part by ISU interns and work-study students starting in 2022.
Id. at 3.
ISU's work-study students were paid either by ISU through its Sycamore
Community Works Program or by federal work-study funds. 	Id. While the
1 The Pride Center has not requested an evidentiary hearing, see dkt. 11, and informed
the Court that one was not necessary, dkt. 15. Cf. Promatek Indus., Ltd. v. Equitrac
Corp., 300 F.3d 808, 814 (7th Cir. 2002) ("[T]he party seeking the evidentiary hearing
must demonstrate that it has and intends to introduce" relevant evidence.). While the
record is understandably underdeveloped at this stage, the parties do not dispute the
material facts that are available, but rather whether they show a likelihood of success
on the merits. See Dexia Credit Local v. Rogan, 602 F.3d 879, 884 (7th Cir. 2010) (A
hearing is required only if "one is called for as a result of a fact issue created by" the
preliminary-injunction filings.).
Case 2:25-cv-00445-JPH-MG Document 28 Filed 01/21/26 Page 2 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
students work at and are supervised by the partner organization, they are ISU
employees. 	Dkt. 24-2 at 1; dkt. 24-3 at 1.
The Pride Center's job descriptions for the work-study positions state
that applicants, "Must be LGBTQIAP+ affirming and culturally responsive."
Dkt. 20-2 at 167–183; 235–250 (job descriptions for student work-study
positions at the Pride Center); dkt. 24-8 (same). 	The job descriptions also
included a "[s]trong preference for candidates with knowledge of LGBTQ+
issues and experience with programming and advocacy." 	Id.2
In the spring of 2025, ISU began reviewing its work-study partner
contracts "with special attention to several recent directives from the
Department of Justice and the Indiana state legislature" about potentially
discriminatory activities and affiliations. 	Dkt. 24-5 at 3 (Lutz decl.). 	In July
2025, ISU Vice President for University Engagement Nancy Rogers reviewed a
list of work-study partner organizations and put the Pride Center on hold:
2 The Pride Center's strategic plan included "prioritiz[ing] community members who
are queer, transgender, and people of color for board member, volunteer, intern, staff,
and facilitator opportunities." Dkt. 20-1 at 4. ISU was not aware of that language
when it terminated its partnership with the Pride Center. Dkt. 25 at 7.
Case 2:25-cv-00445-JPH-MG Document 28 Filed 01/21/26 Page 3 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
Dkt. 20-2 at 199.
The next day, the United States Department of Justice issued a memo to
federal agencies "clarif[ying] the application of federal antidiscrimination laws
to programs or initiatives that may involve discriminatory practices." 	Dkt. 20-2
at 185. 	The memo recommended "non-binding best practices to help entities
avoid the risk of violations" of federal antidiscrimination laws, including not
using "protected characteristics for employment, program participation, or
other similar activities, opportunities, or benefits." 	Id. at 186. 	It also identified
"unlawful discriminatory policies and practices":
Id. at 188. 	The memo recommended that agencies "[m]onitor third parties that
receive federal funds to ensure ongoing compliance, including reviewing
program materials, participant feedback, and outcomes to identify potential
discriminatory practices," and "[t]erminate funding for noncompliant
programs." 	Id. at 193.
On August 8, 2025, ISU informed the Pride Center's President, Katie
Lugar, that it would no longer fund work-study positions at the Pride Center:
Case 2:25-cv-00445-JPH-MG Document 28 Filed 01/21/26 Page 4 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
Id. at 184. 	After the Pride Center asked ISU to reconsider because it does "not
hire based on identity" and "follow[s] recent guidance of the [Department of
Justice]", ISU responded:
The decision was made in consultation with our Legal
Counsel 	based 	on 	their 	interpretation 	of 	the
Department of Justice memo. 	We will not be funding
Federal Work Study or Sycamore Community Works
positions this fiscal year 2025–26.
Dkt. 20-2 at 209–10.
The Pride Center filed this case against Indiana State's Vice President for
University Engagement and Executive Director, Career Services ("ISU") alleging
First Amendment violations against ISU. 	Dkt. 1. 	The Pride Center seeks a
preliminary injunction that would require Defendants "to reinstate, and
Case 2:25-cv-00445-JPH-MG Document 28 Filed 01/21/26 Page 5 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
continue to provide, funding for student-employees at the Pride Center . . . as it
has in the past." 	Dkt. 11.
II.
Preliminary Injunction Standard
Injunctive relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 is "an exercise
of very far-reaching power, never to be indulged in except in a case clearly
demanding it." 	Cassell v. Snyders, 990 F.3d 539, 544 (7th Cir. 2021). 	To
obtain such extraordinary relief, the party seeking the preliminary injunction
carries the burden of persuasion by a clear showing. 	See id.; Mazurek v.
Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997).
Determining whether a plaintiff "is entitled to a preliminary injunction
involves a multi-step inquiry." 	Int'l Ass'n of Fire Fighters, Local 365 v. City of E.
Chi., 56 F.4th 437, 446 (7th Cir. 2022). 	"As a threshold matter, a party seeking
a preliminary injunction must demonstrate (1) some likelihood of succeeding
on the merits, and (2) that it has no adequate remedy at law and will suffer
irreparable harm if preliminary relief is denied." 	Id. 	"If these threshold factors
are met, the court proceeds to a balancing phase, where it must then consider:
(3) the irreparable harm the non-moving party will suffer if preliminary relief is
granted, balancing that harm against the irreparable harm to the moving party
if relief is denied; and (4) the public interest, meaning the consequences of
granting or denying the injunction to non-parties." 	Cassell, 990 F.3d at 545.
This "involves a 'sliding scale' approach: the more likely the plaintiff is to win
on the merits, the less the balance of harms needs to weigh in his favor, and
Case 2:25-cv-00445-JPH-MG Document 28 Filed 01/21/26 Page 6 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
vice versa." 	Mays v. Dart, 974 F.3d 810, 818 (7th Cir. 2020). 	"In the final
analysis, the district court equitably weighs these factors together, seeking at
all times to minimize the costs of being mistaken." 	Cassell, 990 F.3d at 545.
III
Analysis
The Pride Center asks the Court to enter a preliminary injunction that
would effectively reverse ISU's decision to no longer make work-study funds
available to ISU students who are employed at the Pride Center. 	Dkt. 20 at 17-
19, 28. 	The Pride Center argues that ISU's decision "is a blatant violation of
the First Amendment's prohibition on the government punishing an
organization for its expressive activities, viewpoint, and expressive association."
Dkt. 20 at 2. 	The Pride Center further contends that ISU's decision burdens
the Pride Center's expression based on its content and burdens its right of
association, so the Court must review ISU's decision under the "strict scrutiny"
standard. 	Id. at 17. 	ISU responds that the decision was not based on the
Pride Center's viewpoints or speech but related to its desire to comply with
applicable laws regarding discriminatory practices. 	Dkt. 25 at 19–21. 	ISU
further argues that choosing to not partner with the Pride Center is not stifling
speech but instead choosing not to subsidize it, which does not implicate the
First Amendment absent viewpoint-based discrimination. 	Id. at 22–24. 	In
reply, the Pride Center contends that ISU's work-study partnership was not a
subsidy, so the speech-subsidy cases do not apply. 	Dkt. 27 at 10–12. 	The
Pride Center further argues that even if "speech subsidy" cases apply, ISU's
Case 2:25-cv-00445-JPH-MG Document 28 Filed 01/21/26 Page 7 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

8
actions still violated the First Amendment under the strict scrutiny standard as
viewpoint-based discrimination. 	Id.
The First Amendment "protects the right to be free from government
abridgment of speech." 	Ysursa v. Pocatello Educ. Ass'n, 555 U.S. 353, 358
(2009). 	It does not, however, require the government "to assist others in
funding the expression of particular ideas." 	Id.; see Lyng v. Int'l Union, UAW,
485 U.S. 360, 368 (1988) ("We have held in several contexts including the First
Amendment that a legislature's decision not to subsidize the exercise of a
fundamental right does not infringe the right.").
Here, ISU's funding of work-study positions at the Pride Center is a
subsidy because it provides government funds through ISU for ISU students to
work for the Pride Center. 	See Legal Servs. Corp. v. Velazquez, 531 U.S. 533,
536, 544 (2001) (government funds granted to nonprofit organizations for
attorneys to provide legal aid clients was a subsidy); Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S.
173, 192–93 (1991) (government funds provided to private entities for doctors
to provide family planning services was a subsidy). 	Most recently, the Seventh
Circuit considered the COVID-era Paycheck Protection Program, which
provided forgivable loans to "keep employees on the payroll" but excluded
businesses that "[p]resent live performances of a prurient sexual nature."
Camelot Banquet Rooms, Inc. v. U.S. Small Business Admin., 24 F.4th 640, 644–
46 (7th Cir. 2022). That exclusion was not a regulation of protected
expression; instead, Congress had "simply chosen not to subsidize it." 	Id.
(holding that the adult-entertainment exclusion did not violate the First
Case 2:25-cv-00445-JPH-MG Document 28 Filed 01/21/26 Page 8 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

9
Amendment because it was "not trying to regulate or suppress plaintiffs' adult
entertainment."). 	Id. 	Under that reasoning, ISU's work-study program is a
subsidy rather than a regulation. 	See id. ("The Supreme Court has repeatedly
drawn a line between government regulation of speech, on one hand, and
government subsidy of speech, on the other.").
A denial of subsidies generally does not violate First Amendment
protections for speech and association. 	Ysursa, 555 U.S. at 355 ("The First
Amendment prohibits government from 'abridging the freedom of speech'; it
does not confer an affirmative right to use government payroll mechanisms for
the purpose of obtaining funds for expression."); Lyng, 485 U.S. at 368 ("[T]he
strikers' right of association does not require the Government to furnish funds
to maximize the exercise of that right."). 	Even more, "speaker-based
discrimination is permissible when the state subsidizes speech." 	Wisc. Educ.
Ass'n Council v. Walker, 705 F.3d 640, 646 (7th Cir. 2013). 	That's because
choosing who to subsidize is "merely funding one activity to the exclusion of
another," so it does not violate the First Amendment "unless it discriminates on
the basis of ideas." 	Id.; see Regan v. Taxation With Representation of
Washington, 461 U.S. 540, 549 (1983) ("[S]election of particular entities or
persons for entitlement to this sort of largesse is obviously a matter of policy
and discretion not open to judicial review unless in circumstances which here
we are not able to find."). For example, the government can exclude adult-
entertainment venues from a payroll subsidy even though they are "engaging in
expressive activity protected by the First Amendment." 	Camelot, 24 F.4th at
Case 2:25-cv-00445-JPH-MG Document 28 Filed 01/21/26 Page 9 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

10
646 ("The problem with plaintiffs' First Amendment claim . . . is that Congress
is not trying to regulate or suppress plaintiffs' adult entertainment. 	It has
simply chosen not to subsidize it.").
Accordingly, a decision not to subsidize "only violates the First
Amendment if it discriminates on the basis of viewpoint." 	Walker, 705 F.3d; cf.
Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155, 170 (2015) ("[L]aws favoring some
speakers over others demand strict scrutiny when the legislature's speaker
preference reflects a content preference." (emphasis added)). 	Prevailing on that
basis is an uphill battle for the Pride Center because, "as far as [the Seventh
Circuit] can tell, the Supreme Court has never struck down the denial of" a
"selective subsidy" that did not regulate speech. 	Camelot, 24 F.4th at 646.
On the limited preliminary-injunction record here, the Pride Center has
not shown a substantial likelihood of success in proving viewpoint
discrimination. 	It argues that ISU has admitted "in no uncertain terms" that it
terminated its partnership with the Pride Center "because the Pride Center is
generally 'affirming' of the LGBTQ population." 	Dkt. 20 at 20 (citing dkt. 20-2
at 43–45, 62–64 (Lutz 30(b)(6) dep.)). 	But that is not what the cited deposition
reflects. 	Instead, ISU testified that it looked at the Pride Center's job
description and identified as the "primary concern" its requirement that work-
study applicants "must be LGBTQIAP+ affirming." 	Dkt. 20-2 at 43–45, 62–64.
ISU's testimony is thus that it was not the LGBTQ+ content of that affirmation
that drove its decision, but that the Pride Center required the affirmation of its
work-study students in tension with federal and state legal guidance. 	See id.
Case 2:25-cv-00445-JPH-MG Document 28 Filed 01/21/26 Page 10 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

11
at 42–43 (explaining that ISU "look[ed] at hiring practices, looking at the job
description and what they're requiring of students to do").
The Pride Center next argues that its work-study participation did not
"risk[ ] running afoul of any state or federal law or regulation," so ISU cannot
cite the Department of Justice's guidance as a "compelling interest" to satisfy
strict scrutiny. 	Dkt. 20 at 20–21. 	The denial of a subsidy, however, does not
trigger strict scrutiny absent content discrimination. 	Ysursa, 555 U.S. at 358;
Reed, 576 U.S. at 170. 	And ISU has designated evidence that it terminated the
partnership with the Pride Center on advice of legal counsel related to
Department of Justice guidance about preferential treatment based on
protected characteristics. 	Dkt. 24-1 at 39 (Lutz 30(b)(6) dep. at 38) (testifying
that "the Pride Center was terminated" from the work-study program "because
of the guidance issued by the Department of Justice"); dkt. 24-12 at 2 (email
informing the Pride Center that ISU's decision not to fund the Pride Center's
positions was based on the Department of Justice guidance); dkt. 24-13 at 2
(same).3
3 ISU also relies on the Pride Center's internal strategic plan, which included
"prioritiz[ing] community members who are queer, transgender, and people of color for
board member, volunteer, intern, staff, and facilitator opportunities." Dkt. 20-1 at 4.
The Pride Center has provided evidence that this policy does not apply to work-study
employees, but ISU's skepticism of that appears justified by plan's express application
to "volunteer, intern, staff, and facilitator opportunities." See id.; dkt. 25 at 27. Since
ISU was not aware of this policy when it terminated its partnership with the Pride
Center, the Court does not consider it in evaluating whether the Pride Center is likely
to succeed on its claim that the termination discriminated based on viewpoint. See
dkt. 25 at 7.
Case 2:25-cv-00445-JPH-MG Document 28 Filed 01/21/26 Page 11 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

12
The Pride Center argues that ISU has not shown that the "LGBTQIAP+
affirming" job requirement constitutes unlawful viewpoint discrimination under
applicable laws. 	But even if so, that is not enough to establish a likelihood of
success on its First Amendment claim. 	Instead, ISU can make viewpoint-
neutral decisions based on legal uncertainties and risk evaluations from an
institutional perspective without violating the First Amendment. 	See Walker,
705 F.3d 640, 646. 	Therefore, regardless of whether the Pride Center's job
requirement violates applicable antidiscrimination laws, ISU does not
discriminate based on the Pride Center's viewpoint by concluding that the Pride
Center's job requirement places ISU at risk of violating applicable
antidiscrimination laws as interpreted and enforceable by the DOJ. 	See
Christian Legal Society v. Walker, 453 F.3d 853, 861 (7th Cir. 2006) (addressing
"the threshold question" of whether the university's "stated grounds for
derecognition actually applies").
The Pride Center resists that conclusion by arguing that ISU could not
have relied on the Department of Justice memo because it terminated the Pride
Center partnership on July 28, 2025, before that memo was issued on July 29.
Dkt. 20 at 20–21. 	But the record instead reflects that ISU initially put a
decision on hold pending further information:
Case 2:25-cv-00445-JPH-MG Document 28 Filed 01/21/26 Page 12 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

13
Dkt. 20-2 at 199; accord dkt. 24-1 at 53–55 (Lutz 30(b)(6) dep. at 52–54)
(explaining that, on July 28, "Nancy needed more information to be able to
understand whether or not we can move forward based upon the materials that
were provided" so "[t]hey were put on pause"). 	The Pride Center has not
contested ISU's designated evidence that this initial decision to further evaluate
its relationship with the Pride Center was based on DOJ guidance issued in
February and May of 2025. 	Dkt. 24-5 at 3–4 ¶¶ 8–9. 	This undermines any
inference that ISU's initial decision to put the Pride Center's work-study funds
on hold was motivated by the Pride Center's viewpoints rather than ISU's desire
to evaluate whether its affiliation with the Pride Center presented legal risk.
The Pride Center therefore has not cast doubt on ISU's evidence that it
made its final decision after reviewing the July 29, 2025, DOJ guidance, along
with "the prior guidances, recent Indiana state law and executive orders, and
the Pride Center’s job description for its Federal Work-Study and Sycamore
Community Work program positions." 	Id. at 4 ¶ 10. 	At that point, "ISU—with
the advice of counsel—decided not to renew its Federal Work-Study agreement
with the Pride Center for the 2025-2026 academic year." 	Id. That decision was
Case 2:25-cv-00445-JPH-MG Document 28 Filed 01/21/26 Page 13 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

14
communicated internally and to the Pride Center on August 8, more than a
week after the Department of Justice's guidance. 	Dkt. 20-2 at 184, 205–06.
Next, the Pride Center contends that content discrimination can be
inferred because other organizations did not have their partnerships cancelled
despite a focus on "equity and inclusion." 	Dkt. 20 at 13–14, 23–24. 	The
position descriptions for those organizations, however, generically require the
ability to "work effectively with a diverse community" and list "Equity and
Inclusion" as one of its "Career Readiness Competencies" alongside other
general skills like "Leadership," "Teamwork," "Critical Thinking," and "Work
Ethic." 	Dkt. 20-3 at 25, 28–31, 35–37, 41–44, 61–64, 67 (work-study position
descriptions for Baptist Collegiate Ministry, CANDLES Museum, Happiness Bag
Special Olympics, and United Campus Ministries). 	The Pride Center also cites
several organizations' websites to show that their work involves protected
characteristics like religion, ethnicity, and disability. 	It has not, however, cited
evidence that any of those organizations required ISU work-study students to
hold particular viewpoints related to protected characteristics. 	See dkt. 20 at
13–14. 	So, the Pride Center has not shown that any of those organizations had
a job requirement comparable to its requirement that work-study students be
"LGBTQIAP+ affirming and culturally responsive." 	Dkt. 20-2 at 167–183; 235–
250; dkt. 24-8. 	Therefore, the Pride Center's evidence and arguments about
other organizations ISU partners with for work-study positions do not, at this
stage, undermine ISU's evidence that it terminated the partnership because of
legal concerns about the Pride Center's job requirement as described in the
Case 2:25-cv-00445-JPH-MG Document 28 Filed 01/21/26 Page 14 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

15
position description, rather than because of an LGBTQ+ viewpoint. 	Dkt. 20-2
at 43–45, 62–64; cf. Walker, 705 F.3d at 650 ("That the benefits of Act 10's
subsidy may fall more heavily on groups with one particular viewpoint does not
transform a facially neutral statute into a discriminatory one.").
Finally, the Pride Center argues—for the first time in reply—that "ISU
has a lamentable recent pattern regarding LGBTQ issues on campus." 	Dkt. 27
at 8–9. 	It points to evidence that ISU previously did not allow a Pride Fest on
campus; cancelled a social work course's site visit to the Pride Center; and
cancelled a drag show performance associated with an art installation
"Celebrating Queer Graphic Arts." 	Id. 	This argument is waived. 	Int'l Assoc. of
Fire Fighters, Local 365 v. City of E. Chicago, 56 F.4th 437, 452 (7th Cir. 2022).
Moreover, the Pride Center designates no evidence that the two Defendants
here—ISU's Vice-President for University Engagement and Director, Career
Services—were involved in those decisions and cites no authority supporting
the use of prior events like these to infer viewpoint discrimination in a separate
decision. 	See dkt. 27 at 8–9.
In short, the Pride Center has not provided evidence to show that ISU's
decision to not fund the Pride Center's work-study positions was based on the
Pride Center's viewpoint regarding LGBTQ+ issues. 	The Pride Center therefore
has not shown a substantial likelihood of success on its First Amendment
claim.4 See Doe v. Univ. of Southern Indiana, 43 F.4th 784, 800 (7th Cir. 2022)
4 Because the Pride Center has not shown a substantial likelihood of success on the
merits justifying a preliminary injunction, the Court does not consider the other
Case 2:25-cv-00445-JPH-MG Document 28 Filed 01/21/26 Page 15 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

16
(The moving party "must show a likelihood of success on the merits, not mere a
'better than negligible' chance.").
IV.
Conclusion
The Pride Center's motion for preliminary injunction is DENIED. 	Dkt.
[11].
SO ORDERED.
Distribution:
All electronically registered counsel
preliminary injunction factors. See Halczenko v. Ascension Health, 37 F.4th 1321,
1326 (7th Cir. 2022).
Date: 1/21/2026
Case 2:25-cv-00445-JPH-MG Document 28 Filed 01/21/26 Page 16 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>