ACLU and others ready lawsuits on Trump's religious exemption order

[babylonsister]

ACLU and others ready lawsuits on Trump's religious exemption order
By Lydia Wheeler - 05/04/17 01:13 PM EDT


Groups are gearing up to file legal challenges against President Trump's executive order that makes it easier for religious groups to participate in politics without risking their tax-exempt status.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) said it has a 17-page complaint ready to be filed in the federal District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. The group’s attorney, Andrew Seidel, said he’s just waiting to see the exact language of the order.

The order, which Trump signed Thursday morning, is reportedly designed to ease enforcement of a provision in the federal tax code known as the Johnson Amendment, which bars religious institutions from endorsing or opposing political candidates and parties. Doing so, Seidel said violates the Constitution.

“The government is not allowed to favor one particular religion over another or favor religion over non-religion,” Seidel said. “That’s a violation of the Equal Protection Clause and the Establishment Clause.”

Seidel said the repercussions of the order will be “infinitely worse” than Citizens United v. FEC, the 2010 Supreme Court ruling in which struck down limits on third-party spending on campaigns and candidates.

“This will turn every church into a political action committee,” he said. “They won’t have to file any paperwork with the IRS at all. It’ll be dark money into U.S. politics the likes of which have never been seen before.”

more...

http://thehill.com/regulation/331936-aclu-and-others-ready-lawsuits-on-trumps-religious-exemption-order

[HAB911]

1. @POTUS, we will see you in court, again.

Everyone please support the ACLU

Link to tweet

[PA Democrat]

4. Proud member of the ACLU here!

[MousePlayingDaffodil]

2. As I read the pertinent portion of the Executive Order . . .

. . . it doesn't even have the effect of instructing the Treasury Department to exercise "enforcement discretion" with respect to a 501(c)(3) tax exempt religious institution's having specifically endorsed a candidate for a political office.

That is, section 2 of the Executive Order provides:

"Respecting Religious and Political Speech. All executive departments and agencies (agencies) shall, to the greatest extent practicable and to the extent permitted by law, respect and protect the freedom of persons and organizations to engage in religious and political speech. In particular, the Secretary of the Treasury shall ensure, to the extent permitted by law, that the Department of the Treasury does not take any adverse action against any individual, house of worship, or other religious organization on the basis that such individual or organization speaks or has spoken about moral or political issues from a religious perspective, where speech of similar character has, consistent with law, not ordinarily been treated as participation or intervention in a political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) a candidate for public office by the Department of the Treasury. As used in this section, the term "adverse action" means the imposition of any tax or tax penalty; the delay or denial of tax-exempt status; the disallowance of tax deductions for contributions made to entities exempted from taxation under section 501(c)(3) of title 26, United States Code; or any other action that makes unavailable or denies any tax deduction, exemption, credit, or benefit."

(emphases added).

* * * *

As I read this, the key language is that which refers to "speech" that "has . . . not ordinarily been treated as participation or intervention in a political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) a candidate for public office." The point here is, as things currently stand, the so-called "Johnson Amendment" only operates to provide that a tax-exempt religious institute may jeopardize its tax-exempt status if it should specifically endorse (or specifically oppose) a given candidate for office. Apart from that, there are no prohibitions on a tax-exempt religious institution speaking on "political matters" generally.

The Executive Order does not change anything, as I read it. The "Religious Right" has been played.

[MousePlayingDaffodil]

3. It appears that it wasn't my imagination . . .

This Executive Order is, legally-speaking, altogether meaningless.

[link:https://takecareblog.com/blog/this-executive-order-on-religion-is-thankfully-a-dud|

[spiderpig]

5. Good. I had to mute that bloviating liar while he rambled about protecting religion

as long as it's a religion that's convenient to him.

Then he goes back to the White House to celebrate his "victory" that will cause innocent people to die.

The mind boggles.