Larson v. Valente (1981)

Docket
80-1666
Decided
1981-01-01

Summary

Question: 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? Conclusion: 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.

View the full interactive analysis on SCOTUS Lens →