First Unitarian Church of Los Angeles v. County of Los Angeles, California Valleychurch v. County of Los Angeles, California

• Decision Date: 30 June 1958
• Docket Number: Nos. 382,385,UNITARIAN-UNIVERSALIST,s. 382
• Citation: 78 S.Ct. 1350,357 U.S. 545,2 L.Ed.2d 1484
• Parties: The FIRST UNITARIAN CHURCH OF LOS ANGELES, a Corporation, Petitioner, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, City of Los Angeles, California, H. L.Byram, County of Los Angeles Tax Collector, et al. VALLEYCHURCH, Inc., Petitioner, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; City of Los Angeles, California; H. L.Byram, County Tax Collector
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

357 U.S. 545

78 S.Ct. 1350

2 L.Ed.2d 1484

The FIRST UNITARIAN CHURCH OF LOS ANGELES, a Corporation, Petitioner,

v COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, City of Los

Angeles, California, H. L.Byram, County of Los Angeles

Tax Collector, et al.

VALLEY UNITARIAN-UNIVERSALIST CHURCH, Inc., Petitioner,

v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; City of Los

Angeles, California; H. L.Byram, County Tax Collector.

Nos. 382, 385.

Argued April 8, 1958.

Decided June 30, 1958.

Mr. A. L. Wirin, Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioners.

Mr. Gordon Boller, Los Angeles, Cal., for respondents.

Mr. Justice BRENNAN delivered the opinion of the Court.

These are companion cases to Speiser v. Randall and Prince v. City and County of San Francisco, 357 U.S. 513, 78 S.Ct. 1332. The petitioners claimed the property-tax exemption provided by Art. XIII, § 1 1/2, of the California Constitution for real property and buildings used solely and exclusively for religious worship. The Los Angeles assessor denied the exemptions because each petitioner refused to subscribe, and struck from the prescribed application form, the oath that they did not advocate the overthrow of the Government of the United States and of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means nor advocate the support of a foreign government against the United States in the event of hostilities. Each petitioner sued in the Superior Court in and for the County of Los Angeles to recover taxes paid under protest and for declaratory relief. Both contended that the exaction of the oath pursuant to § 19 of Art. XX of the State Constitution and § 32 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code was forbidden by the Federal Constitution. The court upheld the validity of the provisions in the action brought by petitioner First Unitarian Church of Los Angeles, and the Supreme Court of California affirmed. 48 Cal.2d 419, 311 P.2d 508. We granted certiorari. 355 U.S. 853, 78 S.Ct. 86, 2 L.Ed.2d 62. The Superior Court in the action brought by petitioner Valley Unitarian-Universalist Church, Inc., upheld the validity of the provisions under the Federal Constitution but held that § 32 of the Revenue and Taxation Code violated the California Constitution because it excluded or exempted householders from the requirement. The Supreme Court of California reversed, 48 Cal.2d 899, 311 P.2d 540, and we granted certiorari, 355 U.S. 854, 78 S.Ct. 86, 2 L.Ed.2d 62.

In addition to the contentions advanced by the appellants in Speiser v. Randall, the petitioners argue that the provisions are invalid under the Fourteenth Amendment as abridgments of religious freedom and as violations of the principle of separation of church and state. Our disposition of the cases, however, makes consideration of these questions unnecessary. For the reasons expressed in Speiser v. Randall, we hold that the enforcement of § 19 of Art. XX of the State Constitution through proceedures which place the burdens of proof and persuasion of the taxpayer is a violation of due process.

The judgments are reversed and the causes remanded for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Reversed and remanded.

Mr. Justice BURTON concurs in the result.

The CHIEF JUSTICE took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, with whom Mr. Justice BLACK agrees, concurring.

What I have said in Speiser v. Randall and Prince v. City and County of San Francisco, 357 U.S. 513, 78 S.Ct. 1332, is sufficient for these cases as well. But there is a related ground on which the decision in these Unitarian cases should rest. We know from the record one principle of that church:

'The principles, moral and religious, of the First Unitarian Church of Los Angeles compel it, its members, officers and minister, as a matter of deepest conscience, belief and conviction, to deny power in the state to compel acceptance by it or any other church of this or any other oath of coerced affirmation as to church doctrine, advocacy or beliefs.'

We stated in Girouard v. United States, 328 U.S. 61, 69, 66 S.Ct. 826, 829, 90 L.Ed. 1084, 'The test oath is abhorrent to our tradition.' See American Communications Ass'n v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382, 445, 70 S.Ct. 674, 707, 94 L.Ed. 925 ...