The Student Judiciary released a landmark ruling just after midnight this morning, setting precedent for the future of student organization funding at the University of Wisconsin.

SJ, a subsidiary of the Associated Students of Madison, ruled in favor of the UW Roman Catholic Foundation in a case in which the religious organization accused ASM's Student Services Finance Committee of violating viewpoint neutrality and due process bylaws.

UWRCF alleged that SSFC violated those bylaws when the committee denied the foundation contract status, which would have allowed the religious organization to receive funding for full-time staff.

This was the first contract status case SJ has ever heard, and ultimately it means SSFC will have to re-hear UWRCF's contract status request.

Chief Justice Josh Tyack said the decision took a long time to release because it was a difficult case to decide, but also noted he and the other two justices deliberating the case were "incredibly busy" with school work.

"It did take a long time for us to come to a conclusion just because it is a relatively new issue to be looking at," Tyack said. "The end result of this decision is that when groups want to apply for contract status, they know that there will be a guarantee that a process is followed and that SSFC members will follow their rules."

Although the viewpoint neutrality charges against four SSFC members were previously dropped, UWRCF spokesperson Tim Kruse told The Badger Herald earlier this semester that his group maintained charges of unbridled discretion against the committee because he said committee members never explained why they denied the religious foundation contract status.

SSFC Chair Zach Frey did not return phone calls seeking comment as of press time.

Tyack said the ruling requires SSFC members to fill out individual forms clarifying their vote when the committee makes contract status decisions.

This is already the case for when the committee makes eligibility and budget decisions, and SSFC member David Lapidus said he agrees with SJ's ruling.

"UWRCF made the right argument in terms of there being too significant [of a] possibility of unbridled discretion," Lapidus said. "In order for the system to be viewpoint neutral … we can't just have silence on an issue like that where criteria are — technically speaking — required."

After learning about SJ's ruling, Kruse said he was pleased with the reversal of SSFC's previous decision, and documentation of committee members' reasons for submitting their vote will assure that personal opinions are not a factor in decision-making.

"If I am understanding it right, I feel the court made the right decision," Kruse said.

Since the committee members' votes were never debated, Lapidus said, it is impossible to be positive if committee members that voted against UWRCF receiving contract status did so with discriminatory intentions. But Lapidus added he does not believe anybody on the committee would intentionally violate viewpoint neutrality regulations.

"If anybody did it, it was un-malicious, it was not intended," Lapidus said. "It is something they won't do again, so I don't think it's a significant issue."

SSFC is required to re-hear UWRCF's request for contract status, Tyack said, but added that the committee is not required to grant the religious foundation contract status as long as the decision is viewpoint neutral.

Lapidus said he will vote for UWRCF to receive contract status when the committee re-hears the request, just as he did the first time around.

"I would probably say they wouldn't be in the interest of fiscal responsibility," Lapidus said. "But do they deserve contract status? Absolutely."

–Cassie Kornblau contributed to this report.