Misplaced Pages

Bob Jones University v. United States: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:26, 23 March 2010 editLegalskeptic (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users16,294 edits added 1st amendment navbox, edited categories← Previous edit Revision as of 13:05, 26 March 2010 edit undo24.180.76.18 (talk) BackgroundTag: possible BLP issue or vandalismNext edit →
Line 22: Line 22:


==Background== ==Background==
], because of its interpretation of Biblical principles, denied "admission to applicants engaged in an ] or known to advocate interracial marriage or dating." The University had received a ruling letter in 1942, confirming its tax exempt status. ], because of its interpretation of Biblical principles, denied "admission to applicants engaged in an ] or known to advocate interracial marriage or dating." The University had received a ruling letter in 1942, confirming its tax exempt status. PENIS


The University was notified November 30, 1970 that the ] was planning on revoking its tax exempt status as a "religious, charitable . . . or educational" institution. In response, the University filed suit in 1971 in ''].'' The University was notified November 30, 1970 that the ] was planning on revoking its tax exempt status as a "religious, charitable . . . or educational" institution. In response, the University filed suit in 1971 in ''].''

Revision as of 13:05, 26 March 2010

1983 United States Supreme Court case
Bob Jones University v. United States
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued October 12, 1982
Decided May 24, 1983
Full case nameBob Jones University v. United States
Citations461 U.S. 574 (more)103 S. Ct. 2017; 76 L. Ed. 2d 157; 1983 U.S. LEXIS 36; 51 U.S.L.W. 4593; 83-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P9366; 52 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5001
Case history
PriorCertiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Holding
"Neither petitioner qualifies as a tax-exempt organization...t would be wholly incompatible with the concepts underlying tax exemption to grant tax-exempt status to racially discriminatory private educational entities. Whatever may be the rationale for such private schools' policies, racial discrimination in education is contrary to public policy. Racially discriminatory educational institutions cannot be viewed as conferring a public benefit within the above 'charitable' concept or within the congressional intent underlying 501(c)(3)."
Court membership
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices
William J. Brennan Jr. · Byron White
Thurgood Marshall · Harry Blackmun
Lewis F. Powell Jr. · William Rehnquist
John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor
Case opinions
MajorityBurger, joined by Brennan, White, Marshall, Blackmun, Stevens, O'Connor, Powell (part III)
ConcurrencePowell (concurring in part, concurring in the judgment)
DissentRehnquist
Laws applied
26 U.S.C. § 170, § 501(c)(3)

Bob Jones University v. United States, 461 U.S. 574 (1983), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court that held that the Internal Revenue Service could, without the approval of the United States Congress, revoke the tax exempt status of organizations that are contrary to established public policy.

Background

Bob Jones University, because of its interpretation of Biblical principles, denied "admission to applicants engaged in an interracial marriage or known to advocate interracial marriage or dating." The University had received a ruling letter in 1942, confirming its tax exempt status. PENIS

The University was notified November 30, 1970 that the IRS was planning on revoking its tax exempt status as a "religious, charitable . . . or educational" institution. In response, the University filed suit in 1971 in Bob Jones University v. Schultz.

The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina granted a preliminary injunction, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed in 1973, citing the Anti-Injunction Act.

The University petitioned for a rehearing in the Appeals Court in Bob Jones University v. Connally. The Appeals Court ruled March 21, 1973, stating that Americans United v. Walters did not conflict with the decision in 1973.

The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals decision in Bob Jones University v. Simon (416 US 725). The case was decided May 15, 1974, in an 8-0 decision (Douglas not participating). They stated that there was a lack of proof of "irreparable injury." Justice Powell wrote the decision.

The IRS again notified the University on April 16, 1975 of the proposed revocation. Officially, the IRS revoked the University's tax exempt status on January 19, 1976. The University paid $21 in unemployment taxes for one employee for tax year 1975 and then filed for a refund in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina. The Government counterclaimed for unpaid federal unemployment taxes for the taxable years 1971 through 1975, in the amount of $489,675.59, plus interest.

The District Court ruled December 26, 1978 that the IRS had violated the University's First Amendment rights, and ordered the IRS to refund the University the $21 of taxes that it had paid.

The United States Court of Appeals of the Fourth Circuit ruled that the case be sent back to the District Court

The Supreme Court decision

Bob Jones University v. United States was decided May 24, 1983 in an 8-1 decision with majority opinion written by Warren E. Burger, and joined by William J. Brennan, Byron R. White, Thurgood Marshall, Harry A. Blackmun, John Paul Stevens, and Sandra Day O'Connor. The Court, speaking through Burger, read a "common law" public interest requirement into the statute governing tax-exempt charitable status, and cited Congress' refusal to intervene as proof that they approved of the IRS's construction of the statute. Lewis F. Powell wrote a separate concurring opinion, emphasizing the importance of Congressional approval for administrative policy changes. William H. Rehnquist was the sole dissenter, arguing that the literal terms of the governing statute could not be read to exclude Bob Jones from charitable status.

Aftermath

The case has been cited in many decisions that followed as well as by commentators, due to the significance of the precedent established in this case.

The ban on interracial dating was lifted in 2000 after Dr. Bob Jones III, following a media uproar prompted by the visit of presidential candidate George W. Bush, announced its nullification on Larry King Live.

See also

Notes and references

  1. Full text of the opinion on Findlaw.com
United States First Amendment case law
Establishment Clause
Public displays
and ceremonies
Statutory religious
exemptions
Public funding
Religion in
public schools
Private religious speech
Internal church affairs
Taxpayer standing
Blue laws
Other
Free Exercise Clause
Exclusion of religion
from public benefits
Ministerial exception
Statutory religious exemptions
RFRA
RLUIPA
Freedom of speech (portal)
Unprotected
speech
Incitement
and sedition
Defamation and
false speech
Fighting words and
the heckler's veto
True threats
Obscenity
Speech integral
to criminal conduct
Strict scrutiny
Overbreadth
Vagueness
Symbolic speech
versus conduct
Content-based
restrictions
Content-neutral
restrictions
In the
public forum
Designated
public forum
Nonpublic
forum
Compelled speech
Compelled subsidy
of others' speech
Compelled representation
Government grants
and subsidies
Government
as speaker
Loyalty oaths
School speech
Public employees
Hatch Act and
similar laws
Licensing and
restriction of speech
Commercial speech
Campaign finance
and political speech
Anonymous speech
State action
Official retaliation
Boycotts
Prisons
Freedom of the press
Prior restraints
and censorship
Privacy
Taxation and
privileges
Defamation
Broadcast media
Copyrighted materials
Freedom of assembly
Incorporation
Protection from prosecution
and state restrictions
Freedom of association
Organizations
Future Conduct
Solicitation
Membership restriction
Primaries and elections
Freedom to petition
Categories: