6.11.2006
Oral Arguments Heard in Wiccan v Florida
Friday, the Florida Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the long standing case of the Wiccan Religious Cooperative of Florida, Inc. v. The Florida Department of Revenue. The WRCF is challenging the constitutionality of Florida's sales tax system which excludes sales tax for religious books and other items.
After a cursory evaluation of the arguments as presented in available briefs, it seems to me that WRCF has a solid legal argument concerning the unconstitutionality of the statute, but may have a bit of a hurdle with the issue of standing. One report is that the Court on Friday focused its questions on the issue of standing.
"Standing" means that a party has the right to bring an action to court. It often requires such things as showing that the party has sustained some damage, and that the party has legal status to appear before a given court. Without standing, nothing else gets heard. So, if the Supreme Court agrees that WRCF has no standing to bring the action, the constuitutionality question never gets addressed.
I think the odds are in favor of the Court finding standing, but here is why there is a toss-up about it: the appellate court ruled that WRCF does not have standing. But, because that was never raised as an issue by the Defendants, there is a question as to whether, procedurally, the appellate court could really hear the issue. If it is descided they could, then we get to whether the decision was a correct one, and we delve into a whole other tangle of procedural arguments. Those arguments focus on four issues. If the court finds in favor of WRCF on the first and any one of the other three, WRCF gets their foot in the door for the court to get to the meat of the case. The issues are:
The lack of constitutionality is well covered by Justice Benton in his Dissent, as summarized by Carl Jones:
Friday, the Florida Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the long standing case of the Wiccan Religious Cooperative of Florida, Inc. v. The Florida Department of Revenue. The WRCF is challenging the constitutionality of Florida's sales tax system which excludes sales tax for religious books and other items.
After a cursory evaluation of the arguments as presented in available briefs, it seems to me that WRCF has a solid legal argument concerning the unconstitutionality of the statute, but may have a bit of a hurdle with the issue of standing. One report is that the Court on Friday focused its questions on the issue of standing.
"Standing" means that a party has the right to bring an action to court. It often requires such things as showing that the party has sustained some damage, and that the party has legal status to appear before a given court. Without standing, nothing else gets heard. So, if the Supreme Court agrees that WRCF has no standing to bring the action, the constuitutionality question never gets addressed.
I think the odds are in favor of the Court finding standing, but here is why there is a toss-up about it: the appellate court ruled that WRCF does not have standing. But, because that was never raised as an issue by the Defendants, there is a question as to whether, procedurally, the appellate court could really hear the issue. If it is descided they could, then we get to whether the decision was a correct one, and we delve into a whole other tangle of procedural arguments. Those arguments focus on four issues. If the court finds in favor of WRCF on the first and any one of the other three, WRCF gets their foot in the door for the court to get to the meat of the case. The issues are:
- Whether the WRCF timely raised the constitutional question.
- Whether WRCF is a "taxpayer" such that it can raise a complaint about the tax structure of the State.
- Whether WRCF benefited by the tax provision (and, as such, cannot complain about it) or, instead, that they were harmed by it.
- Whether WRCF could raise the issue as an association representing its members.
The lack of constitutionality is well covered by Justice Benton in his Dissent, as summarized by Carl Jones:
"An exemption that is central to a statutory scheme purporting to authorize a discriminatory tax on the sale, use and distribution of publications, based explicitly on their content, does not conform to federal constitutional requirements," Benton said in the beginning of his dissent.
Citing U.S. Supreme Court and 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals precedent, Benton wrote, "The imprecise reach of an exemption for 'religious publications' is bound to create problems in its everyday administration."
"Does Herman Hesse's 'Siddhartha' qualify?" Benton continued, "Or Nikos Kazantzakis' 'The Last Temptation of Christ?'" As a practical matter, it falls to booksellers to decide by their own, idiosyncratic lights -- at least in the first instance -- which publications are "religious" and which are not.
Benton noted that the majority had not declared whether or not the law was constitutional, but rather, "avoids reaching the First Amendment questions on grounds that are logically and legally unavailable in the procedural process of the case, and that are dubious in their own right."
Benton then went on to argue the 1st DCA's reasoning on the standing question, objecting to the reasoning that because they are a religion they cannot challenge a law meant to benefit religious groups.
"Does this mean that a synagogue cannot question the legality of using public money for a creche [Nativity scene] in the courthouse if a Star of David is installed?" Benton asked. "Would a Muslim congregation have standing [in the same situation], given Islam's view of Jesus as prophet?"
He concluded: "Whatever else may be said about the majority opinion's approach to standing, it discriminates against organizations because they are religious. This is not in keeping with our traditions."
Labels: Paganism
Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
