ACLJ Files Key Motion in IRS Targeting Scandal Appeal | American Center for Law and Justice
  Search  |  Login  |  Register

ACLJ Profile Completion

Verified

Key Motion Filed in IRS Targeting Scandal

By Carly F. Gammill1437658248319

On Monday, in response to a specific request by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the ACLJ filed a key motion in its major lawsuit challenging the IRS’s unlawful targeting of conservative tax-exempt applicants. The ACLJ has asked the court to remand the case to the district court to permit our clients to proceed with their claims against the government.

The ACLJ represents 38 nonprofit organizations from 22 states throughout the country that were caught up in the IRS scheme of targeting tax-exempt applications based on their conservative viewpoints—viewpoints at odds with those of the Obama Administration. The ACLJ appealed on behalf of our clients when the district court dismissed their claims based on the erroneous notion that the targeting scheme was no longer in place.

While our appeal was pending, the appellate court heard oral argument in the related case of Z Street v. Koskinen, challenging another one of the IRS’s discriminatory targeting policies—this one aimed at organizations espousing views about Israel that are contrary to those of the Administration. Because of the similarities between Z Street and our case, the D.C. Circuit, after hearing oral argument in Z Street, put our appeal on hold and directed the parties to file motions, following issuance of its decision in Z Street, regarding how that decision should impact our own appeal.

In our motion, we asked the court, on the basis of the recent Z Street decision, to reverse the district court’s dismissal of our clients’ claims against the IRS and allow our clients to pursue relief based on the agency’s unconstitutional viewpoint-based treatment of them during the tax-exemption process. We highlighted two reasons the Z Street opinion warrants such a reversal.

First, we pointed out the failure of the district court in our case to give proper weight to our clients’ allegations that the IRS subjected them to a discriminatory determination process. The Z Street court held that “the district court was required to assume that the IRS in fact has” in place the alleged targeting scheme—a scheme that “delays the processing of . . . applications from organizations whose views . . . differ from the administration’s.” Because the district court in our case concluded—despite our allegations to the contrary—that no such scheme was in place, its decision dismissing our claims against the IRS was directly counter to the controlling Z Street decision.

Second, and of critical importance, we highlighted the reality that our clients are in precisely the same position as Z Street and should be permitted, like Z Street, to maintain their legal challenge to the IRS’s discrimination against them based on its disagreement with their conservative viewpoints. The Z Street court was unequivocal in its holding that applicants for government benefits like tax exemption are constitutionally entitled to a fair determination process, free from disparate treatment and harm such as intentional delays. As the court put it, for the IRS “to process exemption applications pursuant to different standards and at different rates depending upon the viewpoint of the applicants” would constitute “a blatant violation of the First Amendment.” This is precisely what we have alleged the IRS did to our clients when it singled them out for delays and intrusive questioning based solely on their conservative-sounding names and viewpoints. Just as Z Street “seeks . . . to obtain relief from unconstitutional delay, the effects of which it is now suffering,” so too some of our clients continue to suffer the harm of discriminatory delay as they wait—in one case more than five and a half years now—for the IRS to issue a determination regarding their applications.

And, even more compelling than the allegations in Z Street, the IRS actually admitted to the constitutional violations against our clients when, in May 2013, Lois Lerner publicly acknowledged the intentional targeting of Tea Party and other conservative tax-exempt applicants, including the fact that they took longer to process than other applications. In other words, the very harm for which the D.C. Circuit held Z Street should be permitted to seek legal relief—intentional delay in processing based on the organization’s viewpoint—is the harm suffered by our clients as a result of the IRS’s admitted unlawful conduct.

We are hopeful that the court will permit our clients to return to the district court so that we can finally hold the IRS accountable for its lawless vendetta against the political opponents of this Administration, including our clients.

Petition to End IRS Abuse

Free Speech  Signatures

LOGIN

Receive the latest news, updates, and contribution opportunities from ACLJ.

$20
$40
$60
$120
$240
Make this a monthly tax-deductible gift.

We're taking on the unlimited resources of the Obama Admin. in federal court to hold the abusive IRS accountable. Have your gift doubled. Have your gift doubled through our Matching Challenge.

Email Address is required.
First Name is required.
Last Name is required.
Credit Card Number is required.
Verification Code is required.
Expiration Month is required.
Expiration Year is required.
Receive the latest news, updates, and contribution opportunities from ACLJ.
Encourage your friends to sign and donate by sharing this petition.
Latest in
Free Speech

BREAKING: Senate Judiciary to Subpoena Twitter CEO Over Censorship

By Jordan Sekulow1602798084449

The Senate Judiciary Committee is going to subpoena Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey over censorship. On today’s Jay Sekulow Live , we discussed the Senate Judiciary Committee announcing its intentions to subpoena the Twitter CEO over censorship of conservatives and even the press and to hold a hearing next...

read more

The Johnson Amendment’s Continued Impediment to the Church

By Mark Goldfeder1600960199483

The Johnson Amendment is the controversial provision in the U.S. tax code that prohibits all 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations from participating or intervening in “any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.” As it relates to churches and other...

read more

Big Tech Censorship and Bias – What Do We Do About It?

By Craig Parshall1591794000000

On May 28th, 2020 President Donald Trump released his Executive Order (“EO”) titled, “Preventing Online Censorship.” In releasing the full text of the EO, mainstream media outlets like NBC news were quick to criticize the Presidential order, characterizing it as just a “response to Twitter,” which...

read more

Leftist Doxing of Conservatives and the First Amendment

By Laura Hernandez1570115343105

Last week, the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) filed an amicus brief in two related cases, Americans for Prosperity Foundation (AFP) v. Becerra and Thomas More Law Center (TMLC) v. Becerra. Both cases began in California when the Attorney General required all charities to submit lists of...

read more