FFRF v Geithner – Parsonage Exemption

[Chuck]

US District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin has struck down the housing allowance exemption. The decision can be downloaded here.

“I agree with plaintiffs that §107(2) does not have a secular purpose or effect,” wrote [Judge Barbara B.] Crabb, adding that a reasonable observer would view it “as an endorsement of religion.”


No doubt there will be appeals.

[John_Hannah]

So, what does this mean? Those in that court's jurisdiction are not exempt for the time being? No one is exempt? I don't know how jurisdiction works for District Courts with respect to Federal Laws.

Peace, JOHN

[J. Thomas Shelley]

A very helpful post (with map showing actually jurisdiction in Wisconsin) was posted by LCMS Pr. Charles Henrickson here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3094684/posts?page=25#25

[Chuck]

So, what does this mean? Those in that court's jurisdiction are not exempt for the time being? No one is exempt? I don't know how jurisdiction works for District Courts with respect to Federal Laws.

Good question Pr. Hannah, and I don't know the answer either. I hope Pr. Kirchner will weigh in here.


I would also note that the decision seems to apply only to the housing allowance [§107(2)] and does not affect parsonages [§107(1)].

[Birkholz]

So, what does this mean? Those in that court's jurisdiction are not exempt for the time being? No one is exempt? I don't know how jurisdiction works for District Courts with respect to Federal Laws.

Peace, JOHN

"Defendants [the government] are ENJOINED from enforcing § 107(2). The injunction shall take effect at the conclusion of any appeals filed by defendants or the expiration of defendants’ deadline for filing an appeal, whichever is later."

It depends if the Obama administration decides to appeal.  I don't know what the timeframe is.

My understanding is that this applies to everyone.  A federal judge struck down a federal statute.  The court was in WI as this is where the FFRF is based, but the way that I read this, unless it's reversed on appeal, the federal government can no longer enforce this law anywhere.

[BHHughes]

Well ... that sucks ...

[Matt Hummel]

Point taken Chuck.

[in reference to note below]

[Chuck]

Can we have one thread where we don't take cheap shots?

[Brian Stoffregen]

How might this ruling apply to others who receive tax free housing allowance, e.g., military? As I recall, it was the Pentagon that restored it when it was challenged some 20 years ago.

[cssml]

It seems that this Judge has made rulings in the past that have been unfavorable toward religion.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/national-day-of-prayer-deemed-unconstitutional-but-obama-will-recognize-it-anyway/
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/2010-04-15-prayer-day_N.htm

The National Day of Prayer ruling was  "unanimously dismissed by a federal appellate court in April 2011 due to lack of standing."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Crabb

I doubt this will be the last word on this case.

[J. Thomas Shelley]

How might this ruling apply to others who receive tax free housing allowance, e.g., military? As I recall, it was the Pentagon that restored it when it was challenged some 20 years ago.

During that challenge the Democratic POTUS favored ending the allowance and the GOP controlled Congress specifically restored it.

A more recent challenge came from US vs. Warren (Rick "Purpose Drive Life" Warren); the final outcome was to eliminate the "fair market rental value" ceiling/test for housing allowance.

[Chuck]

Point taken Chuck.

[in reference to note below]

Thanks, Pastor Hummel.

[Matt Hummel]

Chuck-

No worries.  But I laid down the pastoral burden when I crossed the Tiber.  Matt will suffice.

[Chuck]

How might this ruling apply to others who receive tax free housing allowance, e.g., military? As I recall, it was the Pentagon that restored it when it was challenged some 20 years ago.

One part of the Lemon test is that legislation must serve a secular purpose. I don't think anyone would argue that a military housing allowance does not serve a secular purpose.

[Jim Butler]

This only affects the Western District of Wisconsin. From here it would go to the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. If upheld there, it would only affect the states under the 7th Circuit. It would only apply nationally if it comes under the Supreme Court. (This is from my lawyer niece who clerked at the US District Court in Denver.)

This is why the FFRF has filed suit all over the country, to get this into as many District courts as possible. One issue is that of standing. This is why it hits clergy who own their homes and not parsonages; the court ruled the plaintiffs had no standing on the parsonage rule. The question of standing will continue as the appeals are brought up.