That, as the court of appeals explained, the only legal ramification of so speaking would be that the church would then be treated the same as everyone else who speaks likewise--i.e., it'd get major tax benefits, but contributions wouldn't be tax-deductible. The fact that the state would not provide such a dramatic *subsidy *for such speech would not substantially burden that speech, any more than it would burden similarly motivated speech by an individual, for-profit corporation, or other kind of association.
But even if you disagree, and would find a substantial burden, it would still be unconstitutional to give churches special political-speech rights--and avoiding that constitutional violation means the government ought to win under RFRA. On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 10:47 AM, David Cruz <dc...@law.usc.edu> wrote: > In *Branch Ministries*, “the Church d[id] not maintain that a withdrawal > from electoral politics would violate its beliefs.” 211 F.3d at 142. This > fact played a role in the court’s “no substantial burden” reasoning. If a > Church did so maintain today, Marty, what extra analysis would you endorse > that leads to your conclusion that “the Johnson Amendment does not > substantially burden the religious activity of a religious organization—and > therefore does not raise any serious Free Exercise or RFRA questions—*even > if the organization believes that partisan politicking is a significant > component of its religious mission*” (emphasis added)? > > > > -David > > > > David B. Cruz > > Professor of Law > > University of Southern California Gould School of Law > > Los Angeles, CA 90089-0071 > > U.S.A. > > > > > > *From: *<religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu> on behalf of Marty Lederman < > martin.leder...@law.georgetown.edu> > *Reply-To: *Law & Religion issues for Law Academics < > religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> > *Date: *Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 5:55 AM > *To: *Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> > *Subject: *Johnson Amendment E.O. > > > > FYI: > > > > https://takecareblog.com/blog/what-s-all-this-fuss-about- > the-johnson-amendment > <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https://takecareblog.com/blog/what-s-all-this-fuss-about-the-johnson-amendment&c=E,1,_-sdTULXZVit5esk1q9CjqIQ45Hv-72LSCkoXZJo7hv5uv1DHfbFMEm6GIi2LKzeCRtpTbEAgpKulNuz3qbbj-ZFFa7_lpo_LXO7k_TYT1o8J00,&typo=1> > > > > Please let me know if you notice any mistakes, thanks. > > > > -- > > Marty Lederman > > Georgetown University Law Center > > 600 New Jersey Avenue, NW > > Washington, DC 20001 > > 202-662-9937 <(202)%20662-9937> > > > > _______________________________________________ > To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw > > Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as > private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are > posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or > wrongly) forward the messages to others. > -- Marty Lederman Georgetown University Law Center 600 New Jersey Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001 202-662-9937
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
