Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Swaggart Ministries v. Board of Equalization of California

Supreme Court of the United States · 1990 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawFree Exercise ClauseEstablishment ClauseState TaxationFree ExerciseEstablishment Clausesales taxuse tax

Facts

California imposed a generally applicable sales tax on retail sales of tangible personal property and a complementary use tax on in-state use of property purchased from retailers, without exempting religious organizations except for a limited meals exemption. From 1974 to 1981, Jimmy Swaggart Ministries sold religious books, tapes, records, and similar materials through California crusades and by mail order to California purchasers. Based on stipulated sales figures for religious materials sold for use in California, the Board assessed taxes and interest, and the ministry challenged the assessment under the First Amendment. The ministry did not contest tax liability for certain nonreligious merchandise.

Issue

Does the First Amendment's Free Exercise or Establishment Clause prohibit California from imposing a neutral, generally applicable sales and use tax on a religious organization's sale of religious materials? Additionally, was the ministry's Commerce Clause and Due Process nexus challenge properly before the Court?

Rule

The Free Exercise Clause does not require an exemption from a neutral, generally applicable sales and use tax that applies to all retail sales of tangible personal property, so long as the tax is not a flat license tax imposed as a precondition or prior restraint on the exercise of religious beliefs. The Establishment Clause is not violated by such a tax where administration of the tax involves only routine, secular determinations and does not create excessive entanglement through official and continuing surveillance of religious activity.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

A nonprofit church in Tulsa sells printed devotionals and music CDs at weekend revival meetings and through its website to Oklahoma customers. Oklahoma applies its ordinary 5% sales tax to all retail sales of tangible personal property, whether the seller is religious, charitable, or commercial.

If the church argues that the tax violates the Free Exercise Clause because it makes evangelism more expensive and reduces funds available for ministry, what is the strongest response?

Explanation. The majority held that the Free Exercise Clause does not require an exemption from a neutral, generally applicable sales and use tax on retail sales of tangible personal property. A burden consisting of reduced income, lower demand, or compliance costs is not constitutionally significant in this setting. The key distinction is that the tax is not a flat license tax operating as a prior restraint or precondition on evangelistic activity. (Derived from Swaggart Ministries v. Board of Equalization of California (1990).)