Major Tax Decision and Supreme Court Update

By 

Jay Sekulow

|
May 23, 2011

3 min read

ACLJ

A

A

Late Friday, we were informed of a big victory in our Zions Hope case down in Florida.  Zions Hope is a Christian ministry that runs a living museum called The Holy Land Experience.  This facility, which includes a 50,000 square foot Biblical expo, also has replicas of various sites within the Holy Land.  Like many modern-day museums, The Holy Land Experience is an interactive experience.  Taxing authorities in Florida denied the tax exemption of this facility, arguing that the facility did not meet the religious purpose doctrine.  We got involved in the case because of our concern regarding government agencies defining what is and is not an appropriate religious use. 

 

This case did not involve any type of attempt to manipulate the tax-exempt status issues.  Rather, Zions Hope Fellowship simply developed a first-class facility to reach tens of thousands of visitors who come to Orlando, Florida, each year.  In an opinion issued last week, the court granted our motion for summary judgment and found the facility to meet the tax-exempt, religious-use requirement.  This was a major victory.  While we are not yet sure if the government offices will appeal, we are confident that if they do, we will continue to prevail.  The issue of defining religious use by government entities is increasingly important in light of the Supreme Courts decision in Kelo.  In Kelo, the Court held that private property could be taken for an economic use. This was a marked departure from previous law on the issue of eminent domain.  One of the concerns raised by Justice OConnors dissent was church facilities being taken for retail shopping malls.  We want to be able to argue First Amendment Free Exercise rights as well as statutory protection in order to protect churches and other religious institutions from these kinds of procedures.  This case helps redefine that issue. 

 

The President is set to meet with leaders of the Senate tomorrow.  The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the current situation on the Supreme Court of the United States in light of Justice OConnors announced retirement.  As of the writing of this notebook entry this morning, we have no further word on the Chief Justice situation.  It is important to note that advice and consent does not constitute a situation where the President is required to give a list of names to the Senate in advance to see if they approve.  Rather, the President is going to talk about the type of judicial philosophy he is looking for in a nominee to the Supreme Court of the United States.  Some senators have already said that they want a say-so in the individual names and, in a sense, a pre-clearance and consensus nominee.  We have strongly urged the President to not get involved in discussions regarding a consensus nominee.  To that end, we are in the middle of a serious campaign to give to the White House information from tens of thousands of Americans who are urging the President to appoint a conservative judicial nominee.  If you want more information about how you can participate in this important issue, visit us at www.aclj.org.