The Federalist Society

Optional Login

Have an account?

Sign in

Email

Password


Forgot password?

Proceed as Guest

Continue
Our website is currently undergoing updates, some links may no longer work and content may change. Please check back soon.

Larson v. Valente

Facts of the Case

Provided by Oyez

In 1961, Minnesota passed the Minnesota Charitable Solicitation Act, which established a system of registering charitable organizations that solicit money. All organizations subject to the Act must file extensive annual reports with the Minnesota Department of Commerce. The Department may deny or withdraw the registration of any organization that engages in fraudulent, deceptive, or dishonest practices. From 1961 until 1978, all religious organizations were exempt from the Act. In 1978, the state legislature amended the Act to include religious organizations that received more than fifty percent of their funding from solicitations of nonmembers.

Shortly after the amendment, the Department notified the Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity (Unification Church) that it must register under the Act. Pamela Valente and other members of the Church responded by suing and alleging that the Act violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The United States Magistrate granted a preliminary injunction and held that the Act failed the second part of the Lemon Test, that the primary effect of a law must neither advance nor inhibit religion. Accepting the recommendation of the Magistrate, the District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. The Court of Appeals affirmed that the fifty percent rule violated the Establishment Clause, but held that proof of status as a religious organization was required to be exempt from the Act.

Questions

  1. Does the Minnesota Charitable Solicitation Act, which imposes registration and reporting requirements on religious organizations that solicit more than fifty percent of their funds from nonmembers, violate the Establishment Clause?

Conclusions

  1. Yes. Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. delivered the opinion of the 5-4 majority. The Court held that the fifty percent rule clearly distinguished between denominations and created denominational preferences within the law, and it did not serve a compelling government interest. The Court also held that the Act failed the three-part test established in Lemon v. Kurtzman by fostering the government entanglement in religion.

    In his concurring opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens argued that, although it is unclear whether or not the Unification Church would be considered a religious organization under the Act before the amendment, the judicial record has assumed it to be, so the majority’s decision to treat it as such is consistent with the orderly administration of justice.

    Justice Byron R. White wrote a dissent and argued that the majority erred by examining the case under a different framework than the previous courts, and should have remanded the case. He also argued that the majority should not have rejected the argument that the state has a valid secular purpose in preventing fraudulent charities from preying on the public. Justice William H. Rehnquist joined in the dissent.

    In a separate dissent, Justice William H. Rehnquist argued that it is the Unification Church’s status as a charitable organization that makes it eligible for the registration requirement, not its status as a religious organization under the fifty percent rule, which establishes exemptions. Since it is unclear whether the Unification Church is a religious organization under the Act, he argued it was improper for the majority’s opinion to rule on the constitutionality issue. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, Justice Byron R. White, and Justice Sandra Day O’Connor joined in the dissent.