Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York, 397 U.S. 664 (1970), was a case before the United States Supreme Court. The Court held that grants of tax exemption to religious organizations do not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. It was the first case to articulate the "excessive entanglement doctrine" that one year later became the third prong of the Lemon test.

Background

Legislation

New York law granted property tax exemptions to religious organizations for religious properties used solely for religious worship.

Dispute

The plaintiff, Frederick Walz, an owner of real estate in Staten Island, New York, brought suit in the New York Supreme Court, Special Term, seeking to enjoin the New York City Tax Commission from granting these exemptions. Walz contended that the exemptions indirectly required him to make a contribution to religious bodies and thereby violated the religion clauses of the First Amendment.

Procedural history

Rejecting this contention, the New York Supreme Court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint. The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court and the New York Court of Appeals affirmed.

Opinion of the court

The United States Supreme Court affirmed, in an opinion by Chief Justice Warren Burger, expressing the views of five members of the court.

Reasoning

The Court held that there was no nexus between these tax exemptions and the establishment of religion, and that federal or state grants of tax exemption to churches did not violate the First Amendment:

Concurrences

Justices Brennan and Harlan, in separate opinions, while concurring in the Court's conclusion that the tax exemptions did not violate the First Amendment, each said they would reach this conclusion by applying different criteria from those the Court applied.

Dissent

Justice Douglas would have held that the tax exemptions for religious organizations violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.