Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/450/944/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 14:57:33+00:00

Document:
Justia › US Law › US Case Law › US Supreme Court › Volume 450 › PRINCE EDWARD SCHOOL FOUNDATION v. U. S.
Justice REHNQUIST, with whom Justice STEWART and Justice POWELL join, dissenting.
The initial question presented by this petition is whether the Internal Revenue Service is entitled to deny tax-exempt status to a private school which discriminates in its admissions policy. If so, the additional question posed is what steps a private school must take in order to establish that its admissions policy is in fact nondiscriminatory.
County, 377 U.S. 218, 223, 231 S., 84 S.Ct. 1226, 1229, 1233, 12 L.Ed.2d 256 ( 1964). Presently, petitioner's sole activity is the operation of one private school, Prince Edward Academy.
From 1959 until 1970, petitioner was considered by the Service as a tax-exempt organization within the terms of 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3). Section 501(a) of the Code exempts from the federal income taxes organizations described in 501(c)( 3), and this latter provision includes corporations or foundations " organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific , . . . literary, or educational purposes. . . ."
of the community either through a newspaper of general circulation or over the broadcast media.
Petitioner has continuously refused to publicize that its school has a racially nondiscriminatory admissions policy, although it has steadfastly contended that in fact this is the case. (App. to Pet. for Cert. 49a). In 1978, the Service revoked petitioner's exempt status because it "[had] not complied with the requirements of Revenue Procedure 75-50 nor any of its guidelines that preceded it and [has] not demonstrated that [it has] adopted a racially nondiscriminatory policy as to students. . . ." (Id., at 18a).
Thereafter, petitioner brought this action under 26 U.S.C. 7428 to review the Service's determination regarding its tax-exempt status, attacking both the statutory and constitutional validity of Rev.Proc. 75- 50. Petitioner filed affidavits in the District Court asserting that it has an open admissions policy and, although no black student has ever attended its school, no black student has ever applied for admission and no official of or personnel related to the petitioner has ever done or said anything to discourage such application. (App. to Pet. for Cert. 49a ). Petitioner also argued to the District Court that since 1973 it has been subject to an injunction entered by another District Court requiring it to admit any qualified black applicants. McCrary v. Runyon, 363 F. Supp. 1200 (ED Va. 1973), aff'd, 427 U.S. 160, 96 S.Ct. 2586, 49 L.Ed.2d 415 (1976). No contention has been made that petitioner is in violation of that injunction order.
criminate on the basis of religion, and private "religious" schools which discriminate on the basis of race but claim that separation of the races is one of the tenets of their religion. Certainly, the Service has never proffered any persuasive reason why these situations should be treated dissimilarly.
Given the general rule that words of a statute, including the Revenue Acts, should be interpreted where possible in their ordinary, everyday sense, Malat v. Riddell, 383 U.S. 569, 571, 86 S.Ct. 1030, 1032d 102 (1966); Hanover Bank v. Commissioner, 369 U.S. 672, 687, 82 S.Ct. 1080, 1089, 8 L.Ed.2d 187 (1962), the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury to promulgate this policy regarding the tax status of private schools is sufficiently questionable to merit review by this Court. Perhaps, implementation by the Service of the express language of the statute will, as suggested by the District Court in Green v. Connally, supra, create problems of a constitutional nature. That, however, is a question that this Court, as opposed to the Service, is better equipped to address.
Assuming, arguendo, the validity of the Service's policy pertaining to private schools, the determination made by the District Court that petitioner does not qualify for tax-exempt treatment is questionable on the record before us. Petitioner was, and still is, under a court order not to discriminate in its admissions. No contempt proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner for violation of that order. Moreover, the District Court had before it sworn affidavits that petitioner has an open admissions policy. Admittedly, petitioner refused to advertise this open admissions policy, but the Service's requirement of such is one step further removed from the express language of the statute and therefore of even more questionable statutory and constitutional validity.
ing admission to such institutions on account of race. McCrary v. Runyon, 427 U.S. 160, 176, 96 S.Ct. 2586, 2597, 49 L.Ed.2d 415 (1976). It is easy to understand why any black parents would not seek their child's admission to an "educational" institution which seeks to inculcate the merits of segregation in the value system of its students. It is not at all unlikely that petitioner will never receive an application for the admission of a black child. This, however is of no relevance to the narrow question of whether a black child, if he desired to attend petitioner's institution, would in fact be granted admission on the same basis as a white child. The Service presented no evidence to rebut the evidence brought forth by the petitioner that this would be the case.
Because I believe the time has come for this Court to deal with the difficult statutory and constitutional questions raised in this petition, I dissent from the denial of the petition for a writ of certiorari.
Footnote 1 This Court summarily affirmed the District Court's decision, sub nom. Coit v. Green, 404 U.S. 997, 92 S.Ct. 564, 30 L.Ed.2d 550 (1971), but we later explained in Bob Jones University v. Simon, 416 U.S. 725, 740, n. 11, 94 S.Ct. 2038, 2047, 40 L.Ed.2d 496 (1974), that this affirmance lacks precedential weight because no controversy remained in Green by the time the case reached this Court.
Footnote 2 The District Court did not address petitioner's statutory and constitutional challenges to Rev.Proc. 75-50. The court reasoned that a ruling on the validity of this Revenue Procedure would not affect the ultimate question of whether petitioner was in fact administering a nondiscriminatory admissions policy. The opinion of the District Court was affirmed in a per curiam order by the Court of Appeals.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.