Texas Monthly, Inc. v. Bullock (SCOTUS 1989)

Summary

The Court held that Texas's sales-tax exemption for religious periodicals and sacred books violated the Establishment Clause because it exclusively subsidized publications advancing religious teachings without a sufficient secular basis. Texas Monthly had standing to seek recovery of taxes paid under protest, regardless of whether state law would eliminate or extend the exemption after invalidation. Justice Blackmun, joined by Justice O'Connor, concurred in the judgment on the narrower ground that the exemption preferentially supported religious messages, while Justice Scalia and the Justices joining him dissented.

Holding

Standing to challenge the exemption and seek a refund. Texas Monthly had standing because a live controversy remained over its right to recover the taxes it paid under protest, plus interest; the State could not defeat standing by arguing that invalidation might lead to removal rather than extension of the exemption or by changing the law after taking the taxpayer's money.

Establishment Clause validity of Texas's exclusive exemption for religious publications. The exemption violated the Establishment Clause because it directed a tax subsidy exclusively to religious organizations and publications that promulgated religious teachings, lacked a secular objective justifying comparable benefits for nonreligious groups, burdened nonbeneficiaries, and conveyed governmental endorsement of religious belief.

Texas Monthly, Inc. v. Bullock

Summary

Holding

Cited authorities

Cited by