Texas Monthly, Inc. v. Bullock
Encyclopedia
Texas Monthly v. Bullock was brought before the United States Supreme Court in November 1988. It was to test the legality of a Texas Statute that exempted religious publications from paying state
sales tax. The Court in an opinion written by Justice Brennan overturned the appellate courts decision. The state was ordered to refund the sales tax paid by "Texas Monthly," with interest.
along with Justice Thurgood Marshall
and Justice Stevens based their opinion in the establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution which reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." As had been decided in earlier cases, not only could Congress not establish a religion, but it could not pass a law with the purpose of advancing religion in respect to non-religion. The lack of a sales tax on religious literature was in effect a subsidy to these religious writers. If the religious writers did not pay a tax, then a secular writer would have to. This would in essence force tax payers, whether religious or not to pay for a subsidy to religions. They held that had the statute been more broad, including charities for example, then it would have been constitutional. Brennan recognized the argument of the state
that taxing the publications may inhibit their ability to function to some extent thereby going against the Free Exercise Clause which states continuing from the above clause "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." However Brennan argued that if all American
people were required to pay the tax it did not unduly burden religion to pay the tax nor "prohibit" them from exercising as they wished.
disagrees with both the court's opinion and the dissenting opinion. Blackmun argues that the opinion does not recognize enough the Free Exercise Clause and the dissent does not recognize the Establishment Clause. He argues that in order to understand the case you must see those two clauses along with the Press Clause which states "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech." When religious writings are given certain perks like a pass on sales tax the free speech of other writers is inhibited because they do have to pay the sales tax. The go on to say that free speech is not inhibited enough to be an issue and so one must decide where the line between the establishment clause and the free exercise clause lays. Blackmun argued that had the law been written to include other philosophical literature it that encouraged morality it may have stood, but when it expressly focused on religion the establishment clause had been violated. Blackmun wrote "In this case, by confining the tax exemption exclusively to the sale of religious publications, Texas engaged in preferential support for the communication of religious messages."
.
U.S. state
A U.S. state is any one of the 50 federated states of the United States of America that share sovereignty with the federal government. Because of this shared sovereignty, an American is a citizen both of the federal entity and of his or her state of domicile. Four states use the official title of...
sales tax. The Court in an opinion written by Justice Brennan overturned the appellate courts decision. The state was ordered to refund the sales tax paid by "Texas Monthly," with interest.
Brennan's opinion
Justice BrennanWilliam J. Brennan, Jr.
William Joseph Brennan, Jr. was an American jurist who served as an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court from 1956 to 1990...
along with Justice Thurgood Marshall
Thurgood Marshall
Thurgood Marshall was an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, serving from October 1967 until October 1991...
and Justice Stevens based their opinion in the establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution which reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." As had been decided in earlier cases, not only could Congress not establish a religion, but it could not pass a law with the purpose of advancing religion in respect to non-religion. The lack of a sales tax on religious literature was in effect a subsidy to these religious writers. If the religious writers did not pay a tax, then a secular writer would have to. This would in essence force tax payers, whether religious or not to pay for a subsidy to religions. They held that had the statute been more broad, including charities for example, then it would have been constitutional. Brennan recognized the argument of the state
U.S. state
A U.S. state is any one of the 50 federated states of the United States of America that share sovereignty with the federal government. Because of this shared sovereignty, an American is a citizen both of the federal entity and of his or her state of domicile. Four states use the official title of...
that taxing the publications may inhibit their ability to function to some extent thereby going against the Free Exercise Clause which states continuing from the above clause "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." However Brennan argued that if all American
People of the United States
The people of the United States, also known as simply Americans or American people, are the inhabitants or citizens of the United States. The United States is a multi-ethnic nation, home to people of different ethnic and national backgrounds...
people were required to pay the tax it did not unduly burden religion to pay the tax nor "prohibit" them from exercising as they wished.
Concurring opinion
The concurring opinion written by Justice Blackmun and joined by Justice O'ConnorSandra Day O'Connor
Sandra Day O'Connor is an American jurist who was the first female member of the Supreme Court of the United States. She served as an Associate Justice from 1981 until her retirement from the Court in 2006. O'Connor was appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1981...
disagrees with both the court's opinion and the dissenting opinion. Blackmun argues that the opinion does not recognize enough the Free Exercise Clause and the dissent does not recognize the Establishment Clause. He argues that in order to understand the case you must see those two clauses along with the Press Clause which states "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech." When religious writings are given certain perks like a pass on sales tax the free speech of other writers is inhibited because they do have to pay the sales tax. The go on to say that free speech is not inhibited enough to be an issue and so one must decide where the line between the establishment clause and the free exercise clause lays. Blackmun argued that had the law been written to include other philosophical literature it that encouraged morality it may have stood, but when it expressly focused on religion the establishment clause had been violated. Blackmun wrote "In this case, by confining the tax exemption exclusively to the sale of religious publications, Texas engaged in preferential support for the communication of religious messages."
Dissenting opinion
Justice Scalia wrote the dissenting opinion being joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Kennedy refuting the arguments by Brennan and Blackmun. He extensively cites Walz v Tax Commission where the justices found a New York law allowing religions and other non-profit organizations to not pay property tax. Scalia argued that even though it included non-profit organizations they had ruled specifically in favor of the exemptions for religions stating in Walz "We find it unnecessary to justify the tax exemption of the social welfare services or 'good works' that some churches perform." He goes on to say that though a tax exemption is similar economically to a subsidy when discussing the establishment clause they are different as found in Walz. Scalia also recognizes that a line must be drawn between the establishment clause and the free exercise clause but sees more room between them. He argues that just because a law is not necessary for the free exercise clause does not mean that it is unconstitutional on establishment grounds. Thirdly he says that it passes all three prongs of the Lemon test by not overly entangling the church and stateU.S. state
A U.S. state is any one of the 50 federated states of the United States of America that share sovereignty with the federal government. Because of this shared sovereignty, an American is a citizen both of the federal entity and of his or her state of domicile. Four states use the official title of...
.
See also
- List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 489
- List of United States Supreme Court cases
- Lists of United States Supreme Court cases by volume
- List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Rehnquist Court