An appeal by two religious groups at San Diego State University who sought to limit their membership and leadership to those who share their beliefs has been refused by the US Supreme Court.

The university told the groups that they must allow themselves in theory to be headed by atheists or else they would be guilty of discrimination.

In a one-sentence order with no comment, the court declined to hear the case.

Responding to the decision, David Cortman of the Alliance Defence Fund said: “The university did not tell the Democratic club it must be led by a Republican, or the vegetarian club it must be led by a meat-eater, but it did tell Christian groups that they must allow themselves to be led by atheists. The supposed marketplace of ideas at San Diego State University will remain a stronghold for censorship.”

The Alliance Defense Fund which defends religious freedom and which represented the two groups concerned the Christian Alpha Delta Chi sorority and Alpha Gamma Omega fraternity at San Diego, said the ruling did not come as a surprise.

“The United States Supreme Court decided not to hear a case today. Alpha Delta Chi (ADX) v Reed. But that’s not really news considering that they decide not to hear about 99pc of the cases brought to them,” said David Cortman, ADF senior counsel.

“What is news though is that the issue in the case of whether religious groups can choose leaders who share their religious beliefs remains hotly contested on the national level.”

“Christian student groups from coast to coast are being told that it is supposed ‘discrimination’ to choose leaders who share their religious beliefs,” Cortman told US website The Christian Post.

“Seemingly to most, whether a group is religious or not, having a leader who shares the group’s beliefs is simply common sense. This is especially so when many other (nonreligious) student clubs are permitted to choose leaders who share their ideological beliefs or viewpoints.”

This was not logic, but law, the ADF lawyer stated.

In the case of Alpha Delta Chi v. Reed, a Christian sorority and fraternity sought to challenge a nondiscrimination policy of California State universities, which says that officially recognised campus groups cannot discriminate based on religion or sexual orientation.

“No campus shall recognise any fraternity, sorority, living group, honor society, or other student organisation unless its members and leadership are open to all currently enrolled students at that campus, except that a social fraternity or other university living group may impose a gender limitation as permitted by Title 5,” the policy reads.

If groups refused to adopt the university’s policy, they would not be eligible for things like student funding, posting signs on campus, reserving office and meeting spaces, using the school name or mascot, and promoting themselves on the university’s website.

Both the Alpha Gamma Omega fraternity and Alpha Delta Chi sorority have struggled to make ends meet by refusing to adopt the policy, which they believe is unconstitutional.

ADF filed a petition in December 2011 on behalf of the two groups at SDSU, asking the Supreme Court to weigh in on a previous ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which upheld the university’s policy.

Judge Harry Pregerson of the appeals court previously said that religious organisations could continue to set their own membership rules but they could not expect the university to subsidise them.

Cortman explained that Pregerson’s remark was an inaccurate way of viewing the case.

“There is no ‘subsidy’ to religious groups when every student group shares in the same system of benefits set up by the school,” he said. “It is more accurately an ‘equal access’ principle.”

“The point of allowing students to form groups around those who are like-minded is to promote the supposed marketplace of ideas and to increase scholarship and debate. Nor does it increase the coveted diversity or tolerance we so often hear about to essentially silence certain groups by requiring them to be led by those who may disagree with their views.”