Chemerinsky's IRC 107 suit!

[Paths of the Sea]

While Chemerinsky appears to have been distracted and has failed to fulfill his previous Rick-Warren-case-related pledge to file that IRC 107 (ministerial housing exclusion) suit based on it being in violation of The Establishment Clause, others have indicated that they are close to being able to file such a suit.

Any folks here wish to offer any insight into the prospects of such a suit and why such a judicial test appears to have not already been made?

Sincerely,
Maury enthusiast!

[Quixote]

How would the plaintiff in such a suit have standing to sue? Any injury to those of us not able to exclude our housing costs is collective rather than individual.

[Paths of the Sea]

The short answer is:

> "taxpayer standing".

There are a number of cases addressing this issue, one within the last few months, and support the "standing" of a "taxpayer" to challenge IRC 107 on Establishment Clause grounds.

Something about Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, I think.

However, a challenge to standing has been anticipated and it might be expected that the Court will have to make a ruling on it before the IRC 107 issue can be decided on its merits.


Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!

[Paths of the Sea]

It might even be noteworthy that a case reported within the last couple of days has taken note that the old Flast case allows a broad swath of plaintiffs to obtain "standing" when challenging tax matters on the basis of the Establishment Clause.

Here's a link to that case:

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/i ... cv_opn.pdf

I think the "Flast" footnote is on page 21.

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!

[Paths of the Sea]

OK, I found my reference to another more directly related recent case.

Try this:

Winn v. Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization,
2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 8242 (9th Cir. 2009).

It has been argued that "Winn" holds that taxpayers have standing to challenge tax benefits in the same way taxpayers have standing to challenge direct expenditures from the treasury for religion.

Sincerely,
Maury enthusiast!

[Kimokeo]

Didn't he Sklar case of California touch on the establishment clause?

[Paths of the Sea]

In a case reported out yesterday, from the 6th Circuit, there is a pretty good discussion of "taxpayer standing".

In my reading of the discussion, I conclude that it further supports the proposition that a taxpayer (e.g., Chemerinsky) would have standing to challenge IRC 107, which comes under Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, on Establishment Clause grounds.

Here's a link to the case:

6th-circuit-opinion.pdf

http://www.au.org/media/press-releases/ ... pinion.pdf

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!

[Paths of the Sea]

I got another message a couple of days ago indicating that the filing of the IRC 107 suit is drawing closer to becoming a reality.

I hope not to suffer another Chemerinsky-style disappointment.

Let the suit be filed!
Let the public debate begin!

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!

[Paths of the Sea]

I saw today where SCOTUS denied cert on the Sklar case. I guess that means the Sklars lost.

I also got wind of a rumor that the official, public announcement and filing of the IRC 107 suit may be as early as next week.

That would be quite nice.

Sincerely,
Maury enthusiast!

[Noah]

I saw today where SCOTUS denied cert on the Sklar case. I guess that means the Sklars lost.

Sklar lacked a Cruise Missle....Tom Cruise that is.