Texas Monthly Inc. v. Bullock - Religious Freedom Page

Texas Monthly Inc. v. Bullock

489 U.S. 1 (1989)

Facts of the Case:

Between 1984 and 1987, Texas had a statute exempting ""[p]eriodicals . . . published or distributed by a religious faith . . . consist[ing] wholly of writings promulgating the teachings of the faith and books . . . consist[ing] wholly of writings sacred to a religious faith." from sales tax. The law was challenged by a publisher who was not exempt from the tax. The publisher claimed that the statute violated the Establishment Clause by promoting religion.

Decision:

The Court decided that exempting religious publications from the state sales tax violated the Establishment Clause.

Majority Opinion: (Justice Brennan)

In this case, the benefits given to religious groups are not also given to non-religious groups. By restricting the tax exemption to religious groups, Texas makes each taxpayer a donor. "It is difficult to view Texas' narrow exemption as anything but state sponsorship of religious belief, regardless of whether one adopts the perspective of beneficiaries or of uncompensated contributors." To be permissible, the exemption must be offered to all groups (religious or not) who meet the goals that the State is attempting to foster. As it currently stands, the law lacks a secular objective. Texas has failed to show that payment of sales tax would infringe on their freedom to practice their religion. "While Texas is correct in pointing out that compliance with government regulations by religious organizations and the monitoring of their compliance by government agencies would itself enmesh the operations of church and state to some degree, we have found that such compliance would generally not impede the evangelical activities of religious groups and that the "routine and factual inquiries" commonly associated with the enforcement of tax laws "bear no resemblance to the kind of government surveillance the Court has previously held to pose an intolerable risk of government entanglement with religion."

Significance:

With this decision, the Court requires laws to be broad enough to apply to all organizations that offer similar benefits as religious groups. The Court distinguishes between this sales tax and an occupational tax that was ruled unconstitutional in Murdock and Follett.