Allen v. Wright, 468 US 737 (1984), is the case of the United States Supreme Court which provides that citizens should not stand to prosecute federal government bodies based on influencing that agency determination may exist on a third party.
Video Allen v. Wright
​​â € <â €
The Internal Revenue Service denies the tax-exempt status under the Internal Revenue Code for private schools that are racially discriminated, and has established guidelines and procedures to determine whether a particular school is in fact racially discriminatory. As a result, private schools deemed by the IRS for racial discrimination are not eligible to receive charitable contributions minus taxes.
Plaintiffs/respondents, parents of African-American children in seven states where public schools have recently been separated, carrying a national class action lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service in a federal district court, argue that the IRS guidelines and procedures for determining whether private schools are racially discriminated against, and denial of the subsequent tax-exempt status to such schools is insufficient. Federal law prohibits tax-exempt status to private schools that discriminate on the ground of race, but parents argue that the standard that the IRS uses to determine whether schools discriminate is unable to identify all discriminating private schools. White parents therefore can avoid integration by sending their children to private schools and reducing charitable contributions to institutions, making it more difficult for black children to attend an integrated school. The plaintiffs sued W. Wayne Allen in his official capacity as chairman of the board of the Briarcrest Christian School, a segregation academy founded in 1973 in response to the desegregation of Memphis city schools.
Respondents also allege that many racially segregated private schools (segregated academies) were created or expanded in the community of respondents when public schools were desegregated, and have received tax exemption despite IRS policies and guidelines; and that this unlawful tax exemption is detrimental to respondents because they are real financial aid to educational institutions that are racially segregated, and encourage the organization and extension of institutions that provide separate educational opportunities for white students who avoid public school attendance. Respondents did not allege that their children had registered or would apply for admission to any private school. Respondents sought for declarations and damages. The District Court rejected the complaint on the ground that the respondent had no position to file the lawsuit and the Court of Appeal was reversed. The United States Supreme Court granted certificates.
Two alleged injuries:
- Direct damage by government financial aid (through allowing tax deductions for donations) to discriminating schools. This is considered a stigmatic injury due to the emergence of government approval for discrimination against blacks.
- Discriminatory tax exemptions for schools disrupt blacks' ability to force the desegregation of public schools, as white parents will only withdraw their children from public schools and place them in discriminatory private schools.
Maps Allen v. Wright
Publish
The court framed this issue as whether the plaintiff had stood up to file a lawsuit.
Results
The court said that the plaintiff has no position to bring this lawsuit:
In essence the question of standing is whether litigants have the right to have a court decide on the benefits of a dispute or a particular issue. The established doctrine includes... a general ban on plaintiffs filing for the legal rights of others, a rule prohibiting the adjudication of public complaints handled more accurately in representative branches, and the requirement that the plaintiff's complaint be in a zone of interest protected by law. called. The standing requirements, however, have core components that originate directly from the Constitution. A plaintiff should allege that personal injury is sufficiently traceable to a defendant suspected of committing an offense and is likely to be corrected by the requested assistance.
The court found that the right to be affirmed to hold the government to the law was not enough by itself to make stands to prosecute. Discrimination is also not sufficient unless the plaintiff is personally denied the same treatment by the government. Here, the relationship between IRS standards and school discrimination is too weak. The Court concludes that the doctrine of separation of powers dictates these results, because otherwise the court can always be called to restructure the Executive branch.
Dissents
Justice Brennan wrote an opinion that does not agree that the use of separation of powers is a truth. He argues that injury to children's opportunities is enough to give the right to demand.
Judge Stevens writes that the allegation really is that the government subsidizes the white flight, which is sufficient to allow standing - the danger (lack of a disegregated school) can be traced to the behavior of the government. Stevens also asserted that standing has nothing to do with the separation of powers.
See also
- Montgomery Academy One of the southern private schools mentioned in the lawsuit and decision.
References
External links
- The Official Website of United States Internal Revenue Service
- 468 AS 737 (Text of opinion on Findlaw.com)
- Case Brief for Allen v. Wright on Lawnix.com
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments