Bob Jones University v. Simon

PETITIONER: Bob Jones University
LOCATION: Central Intelligence Agency Headquarters

DOCKET NO.: 72-1470
DECIDED BY: Burger Court (1972-1975)
LOWER COURT: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

CITATION: 416 US 725 (1974)
ARGUED: Jan 07, 1974
DECIDED: May 15, 1974

J. D. Todd, Jr. - for petitioner
Scott P. Crampton - for respondents

Facts of the case


Media for Bob Jones University v. Simon

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - January 07, 1974 in Bob Jones University v. Simon

Audio Transcription for Opinion Announcement - May 15, 1974 in Bob Jones University v. Simon

Warren E. Burger:

The disposition of the following three opinions, 72-1470, Bob Jones University against Simon; 72-1371, Alexander against Americans United; and 73-5412, Dillard against the Industrial Commission of Virginia will be announced by Mr. Justice Powell.

Lewis F. Powell, Jr.:

The first of these, Bob Jones against Simon, is a case that involves the application of the Anti-Injunction Act of the Internal Revenue Code.

The Internal Revenue Service has a ruling letter program, pursuant to which organizations deemed entitled the tax exempt status are identified.

If an organization is on the tax exempt list, published periodically by the Service, contribution for donors to the organizations are deductible under Section 170 of the Code.

Petitioner, a private university, was notified by the Service that its tax exempt status would be revoked because of racial discriminatory admission policies.

In addition to affecting donors, revocation would result in petitioner paying income and other taxes.

This suit was brought to enjoin the Service from revoking a previously issued favorable ruling letter.

The Anti-Injunction Act provides that no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court.

The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that the Act precludes injunctive relief.

We affirm this judgment.

In doing so, we’re not unmindful of the harshness of a procedures which allows withdrawal and the tax exempt status without a prior adjudication of a correctness of a proposed withdrawal.

In this and similar cases, such an action by the Service may result in irreparable laws to an organization largely dependent upon contribution from donors.

But we are constrained by the explicit language of the Act.

Relieved, if being appropriate, must come from the conveys.

Mr. Justice Blackmun concurs end results; Mr. Justice Douglas took no part in the decision of this case.