Document: 404 U.S. 561 92 S.Ct. 663 30 L.Ed.2d 716 UNITED STATESv.CHRISTIAN ECHOES NATIONAL MINISTRY, INC. No. 71—565. Jan. 24, 1972. PER CURIAM. 1 This case began when the Internal Revenue Service revoked tax-exempt status of appellee, a nonprofit religious corporation. The appellee had previously enjoyed tax exemption under § 501(c)(3) 1954 Code; 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3). section defines exempt organizations, in pertinent part, as: 2 'Corporations . organized and operated exclusively for purposes ., no substantial part activities which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation, does not participate in, intervene (including publishing distributing statements), any political campaign behalf candidate public office.' 3 appellee's this provision was three grounds: (1) that purposes, (2) it engaged activity aimed at influencing (3) intervened campaigns candidates office. 4 paid taxes assertedly owed then filed present suit refund Federal District Court, claiming entitled an Code. heard by single Judge sitting without jury. judge ultimately decided paid.1 5 Court rejected all grounds status. It found, as fact, 'activities have been directed toward achieving its goals,' '(w)ith exception support proposed Becker Amendment United States Constitution relating voluntary prayer Bible reading schools, (the appellee) has attempts legislation,' 'has endorsed candidate, instructed followers how vote but only vote.' On basis findings court concluded law fell within terms That ended case. But nonetheless went discuss certain constitutional issues. 6 In conclusions law, stated First prohibits both Government courts from determining whether organization thus eligible status, analyzing each every classifying 'religious' 'political.' case, said, conducted relied upon such analysis revoking and, reason, denied free exercise religion appellee. also violated right due process singling out, among other investigation revocation 'without evidence action.' 7 seeks appeal decision directly Court. argues we jurisdiction 28 1252. jurisdictional allows direct Supreme 'any holding Act Congress unconstitutional civil action, suit, proceeding party.' Such allowed declared 'as whole' simply applied.' Fleming v. Rhodes, 331 100, 102—103, 67 1140, 1141, 1142, 91 L.Ed. 1368. however, reveal did hold either these ways. Hence, must dismiss want jurisdiction. 8 'basis' Court's decision, Raines, 362 17, 20, 80 519, 522, 524 that, facts adduced trial, qualified question even consider constitutionality whole.' Nor opinion Indeed, would hardly found be 501(c)(3), could validly applied first place. 9 commentary denial method enforced2—not basic applicability. held may discriminate applying section. restricts freewheeling enforcement make more difficult revoke exemptions. call into validity underlying statute. Under 1252, authorized latter situation. 10 Similarly, rights particular interpretation given means enforcing interpretation. At most, court's reasoning point can read construe narrowly so avoid problem.3 refused interpret apply require 'non-religious' character concededly organization, because application infringe religion. already gone too far statement same enacting avoided itself applied'—i.e., section, own terms, infringed freedoms circumstances Rather, misinterpreted construed.4 Although construction based premise, amount unconstitutional, contemplated To contrary, construed save constitutionality. 11 Our not, course, indicate approval those conclusions. issue before us. We there absence appellate 12 judgment vacated remanded entry fresh decree, appellant Appeals Tenth Circuit. 13 Judgment remanded. 14 Mr. Justice DOUGLAS took consideration fact entered June 1971, are officially reported. By greatest portion detailed history Government's For example, stated: '43. (The appellant) characterized appellee's) during years involved urging contact members legislative bodies purpose proposing, supporting opposing legislation. taking stands issues day concerning matters construes threaten beliefs. finds resulted beliefs were merely incidental expression dissemination understanding biblical concepts. further insubstantial relationship totality activities. '44. appellant), describing characterizing non-religious, indicated disagreement with content nature what said written. thereby sponsored definitions 'religion' 'religious.' impermissable (sic). '45. 'current day' act prohibition against intervention legislation violation provisions Code.' A similar distinction drawn context three-judge district statute, 2281. 'It necessary distinguish between petition injunction ground unconstitutionality statute applied, requires court, result obtained use attacked unconstitutional. court. attack allegedly erroneous administrative Ex parte Bransford, 310 354, 361, 60 947, 951, 84 1249.

Category: 8