How the DC Courts Helped the IRS Silence the Church
Ever wondered why churches were so silent while rights were taken away during the COVID scandal? Or why so many highly partisan non-profits are allowed to violate IRS rules? Read on for the answer.
Challenging Branch Ministries v. Rossotti: Restoring 508(c)(1)(A) Church Autonomy and Exposing DC Court Corruption
In 2000, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a ruling in Branch Ministries v. Rossotti that dealt a significant blow to the autonomy of churches claiming tax-exempt status under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 508(c)(1)(A). The decision upheld the IRS’s revocation of Branch Ministries’ tax-exempt status for engaging in political activity, setting a precedent that has been used to justify IRS oversight over churches in violation of their statutory protections. This ruling exemplifies a glaring double standard: while churches face swift punishment for political speech, other tax-exempt entities like unions, universities, and major foundations such as the Gates Foundation openly engage in politically biased activities with little to no repercussions from the IRS. Legal teams must rally to overturn this misguided ruling, restoring the original intent of Section 508(c)(1)(A) as a shield against bureaucratic overreach. The case’s adjudication in the DC District Court, under Judge Stanley Sporkin—a former General Counsel for the CIA—raises serious questions about systemic corruption within the DC judicial system, suggesting a calculated effort to secure a favorable outcome for the IRS. This blog calls for challenging the Branch Ministries precedent and confronting the entrenched biases that taint DC’s judiciary.
The Branch Ministries Case: A Blow to Church Autonomy
The origins of Branch Ministries v. Rossotti date back to 1992, when Branch Ministries, operating as the Church at Pierce Creek in Binghamton, New York, published full-page advertisements in USA Today and The Washington Times. The ads urged Christians not to vote for presidential candidate Bill Clinton, citing moral objections rooted in the church’s religious convictions. Following a complaint from Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the IRS revoked the church’s tax-exempt status in 1995, citing a violation of IRC Section 501(c)(3)’s prohibition on political campaign activity by tax-exempt organizations. This marked the first time the IRS had stripped a bona fide church of its exemption for such actions.
Branch Ministries fought back, arguing that Section 508(c)(1)(A)—which exempts churches from applying for 501(c)(3) status—shielded it from IRS oversight. The church also claimed violations of its First Amendment rights to free speech and free exercise of religion, as well as selective prosecution under the Fifth Amendment. In 1999, the DC District Court, presided over by Judge Stanley Sporkin, granted summary judgment to the IRS, as recorded in Branch Ministries, Inc. v. Rossotti, 40 F. Supp. 2d 15 (D.D.C. 1999). The DC Circuit, in an opinion by Judge James L. Buckley joined by Chief Judge Harry T. Edwards and Judge Laurence H. Silberman, affirmed the ruling in 2000, holding that the IRS had the authority to revoke the church’s tax-exempt status and that the action did not violate constitutional protections (Branch Ministries v. Rossotti, 211 F.3d 137).
The courts reasoned that churches, despite their unique status under Section 508(c)(1)(A), are subject to the same political activity restrictions as other 501(c)(3) organizations. The DC Circuit dismissed the church’s argument that its exemption stemmed from the absence of a provision taxing churches, calling it “creative” but unpersuasive. It further claimed the revocation’s impact was “more symbolic than substantial,” as the church could still claim tax-exempt status, though donors would face heightened scrutiny in audits.
Why Branch Ministries Should Be Revisited
The Branch Ministries precedent is a legal travesty that demands reversal to restore the autonomy Congress intended for churches under Section 508(c)(1)(A). Legal teams should challenge it on multiple fronts:
Misreading Section 508(c)(1)(A): The courts wrongly conflated the distinct treatment of churches under Section 508(c)(1)(A) with the general requirements of Section 501(c)(3). Section 508(c)(1)(A) exempts churches from seeking IRS recognition of tax-exempt status, reflecting Congress’s intent to insulate them from agency control. By imposing 501(c)(3)’s political activity ban, the courts nullified this protection. Legal challenges should argue that Section 508(c)(1)(A) establishes churches as inherently exempt, free from IRS conditions.
First Amendment Violations: The ruling tramples on churches’ rights to free speech and free exercise of religion. The church’s advertisements were an expression of its religious convictions, yet the courts held that abstaining from political activity posed no burden. This dismissive stance ignores the centrality of moral and social issues to religious mission. By empowering the IRS to penalize political speech, Branch Ministries chills religious discourse, warranting a First Amendment-based challenge.
Real-World Harm: The DC Circuit downplayed the revocation’s impact as “symbolic,” but the consequences are far-reaching. Donors to Section 508(c)(1)(A) churches now face IRS scrutiny, discouraging contributions and threatening financial stability, especially for smaller ministries. Legal teams should highlight this burden as evidence of the precedent’s overreach.
Selective Prosecution and Systemic Double Standards: Branch Ministries alleged the IRS targeted it for its conservative views, a claim dismissed without rigorous scrutiny. The case’s origins in a complaint by a politically motivated group, coupled with the IRS’s unprecedented action, suggest bias. Since Branch Ministries, the IRS has revoked the tax-exempt status of numerous organizations, often for failing to file required Form 990 returns for three consecutive years, as noted in IRS guidelines on automatic revocation. According to the IRS’s Automatic Revocation List, over 700,000 nonprofits have lost their tax-exempt status since the early 2000s due to this rule, with the IRS publishing monthly updates of revoked organizations, including their names, EINs, and effective revocation dates. However, the IRS’s enforcement of political activity violations has been grossly inconsistent, particularly when it comes to churches versus other tax-exempt entities.
Churches Singled Out: Churches like Branch Ministries face severe consequences for even minor political engagement, such as the 1992 advertisements, which were rooted in religious conviction. The IRS’s swift action against Branch Ministries contrasts starkly with its leniency toward other tax-exempt organizations that engage in blatant political bias without reprimand. For example, unions like the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), a 501(c)(5) organization, have openly endorsed political candidates and spent millions on partisan advocacy. In the 2020 election cycle, the AFT contributed over $19 million to political campaigns, predominantly supporting Democratic candidates, according to OpenSecrets. Despite this clear partisan activity, the IRS has not revoked the AFT’s tax-exempt status or initiated any public enforcement actions, highlighting a double standard that disadvantages churches.
Universities’ Political Bias: Universities, often 501(c)(3) organizations, also engage in politically biased activities without IRS scrutiny. Many elite universities, such as Harvard and Yale, host speaker events, fund student organizations, and publish research that overwhelmingly leans left. A 2023 study by the National Association of Scholars found that 90% of university faculty donations in the 2020 election cycle went to Democratic candidates, reflecting institutional bias. Yet, the IRS has not penalized these institutions for their politically charged activities, even when they host events that effectively endorse candidates or partisan causes. This lack of enforcement stands in stark contrast to the IRS’s treatment of churches, whose religious speech is often more tied to moral principles than partisan agendas.
Foundations Like the Gates Foundation: Major foundations, such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, further illustrate the IRS’s selective enforcement. The Gates Foundation, a 501(c)(3) organization, has funded initiatives that align with specific political agendas, such as global health policies and education reforms that critics argue promote progressive ideologies. A whistleblower case filed by William S. Scott in May 2024, as reported by brokentruth.tv, alleges that the Gates Foundation engaged in for-profit vaccine-related activities, potentially violating its tax-exempt status. Scott’s complaint, filed with the IRS, requested an investigation into these activities, but the IRS has resisted. In a December 2024 motion to dismiss Scott’s appeal, the IRS claimed that the federal court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case, effectively dodging accountability. A February 2025 update from brokentruth.tv notes that Scott filed for reconsideration, citing new revelations about USAID funding and the Gates Foundation’s influence on emergency clinical trials, yet the IRS continues to bend over backwards to avoid investigating the foundation. This reluctance stands in sharp contrast to the IRS’s aggressive stance against Branch Ministries, revealing a pattern of favoritism toward politically connected entities while churches are held to a stricter standard.
Legal teams should demand discovery to uncover evidence of selective enforcement and expose the IRS’s leniency toward unions, universities, and foundations, which undermines its credibility and fairness in regulating tax-exempt organizations.
DC Court Corruption: A System Designed to Favor the IRS
The decision to litigate Branch Ministries in the DC District Court, under Judge Stanley Sporkin, followed by affirmation by the DC Circuit, raises serious concerns about intentional venue selection to secure an IRS victory. Sporkin’s background as General Counsel for the CIA from 1981 to 1986 adds another layer of suspicion, given his deep ties to the federal government and its intelligence apparatus. The DC courts’ well-documented history of deference to federal agencies suggests a corrupted process designed to produce a precedent curbing church autonomy.
Strategic Venue Selection: The IRS, headquartered in DC, likely chose this jurisdiction to leverage the DC District Court’s pro-government leanings. Litigating in DC, rather than near the church’s base in Binghamton, New York, smells of forum shopping. Sporkin’s courtroom, in a district known for upholding agency actions, was an ideal stage for the IRS’s power grab. Legal teams should investigate jurisdictional maneuvers that steered the case to DC.
Sporkin’s Government Ties: Judge Stanley Sporkin, who ruled in favor of the IRS, had served as General Counsel for the CIA, a role that likely ingrained a deference to federal authority. His tenure at the CIA, coupled with his earlier career at the SEC where he led enforcement actions against major corporations, suggests a judicial mindset aligned with government interests. Sporkin’s background raises questions about his impartiality in a case pitting a church against a federal agency, particularly one involving issues of free speech and religious liberty.
Judicial Deference and Chevron: The DC Circuit’s reliance on Chevron deference, which instructed courts to defer to agency interpretations, bolstered the IRS’s position. The 2024 Supreme Court decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo overturned Chevron, shifting statutory interpretation to the judiciary. This opens the door to challenge Branch Ministries, as the DC courts’ deference to the IRS’s reading of Section 508(c)(1)(A) may no longer stand. The original reliance on Chevron reflects a DC judicial bias toward agency power, potentially amplified by Sporkin’s ruling.
DC’s Politicized Judiciary: The DC courts have long faced accusations of politicization, with judges operating in a bubble of federal influence. During the 1990s, the DC Circuit, including Buckley, Edwards, and Silberman, often aligned with government interests, especially in regulatory cases. The Branch Ministries ruling coincided with political efforts to curb conservative religious influence, suggesting external pressures on the judiciary. Sporkin’s ruling, upheld by the DC Circuit, fits this pattern of deference to federal power.
IRS Opacity and CAPA Violations: The IRS’s actions, triggered by a politically charged complaint, lacked transparency. The Church Audit Procedures Act (CAPA) imposes strict rules on church audits, yet the IRS’s swift revocation suggests possible violations, potentially overlooked by Sporkin’s court. The dismissal of the selective prosecution claim without robust discovery further taints the process. Future litigation should probe IRS records to expose potential collusion with DC judges.
A Call to Action for Legal Teams
To dismantle Branch Ministries and restore Section 508(c)(1)(A) autonomy, legal teams must act decisively:
File Test Cases: Represent churches facing IRS scrutiny for political activity and challenge the IRS’s authority under Section 508(c)(1)(A). Use Loper Bright to argue that courts, not agencies, define church exemptions, emphasizing their unique statutory status.
Seek Supreme Court Review: With Chevron overturned, the Supreme Court may revisit Branch Ministries to protect church autonomy and clarify First Amendment rights. A compelling case could bury this precedent for good.
Expose DC Judicial Culture: Investigate the historical biases within the DC courts, including the influence of judges like Sporkin, whose government background may have skewed their impartiality. Subpoena records to uncover evidence of venue manipulation or external pressures in cases like Branch Ministries.
Rally Public Support: Mobilize religious liberty advocates, legal scholars, and faith communities to highlight Branch Ministries’ harm and the broader corruption within the DC judiciary. Public outrage can pressure courts to reconsider the precedent and reform IRS oversight.
Conclusion
Branch Ministries v. Rossotti is a stain on religious liberty, empowering the IRS to encroach on churches’ autonomy under Section 508(c)(1)(A) while allowing other tax-exempt entities like unions, universities, and foundations to engage in politically biased activities with impunity. The case’s adjudication in the DC District Court, under Judge Stanley Sporkin—a former General Counsel for the CIA—and its affirmation by the DC Circuit reflect a judicial culture biased toward federal power, likely exacerbated by strategic venue selection. Legal teams must challenge this precedent, leveraging Loper Bright to restore church autonomy and exposing the corruption that has long plagued DC’s courts. The fight for religious freedom and fair taxation demands nothing less than overturning this tainted ruling and holding the judiciary accountable.
Sources:
Branch Ministries v. Rossotti, 211 F.3d 137 (D.C. Cir. 2000)
Branch Ministries v. Rossotti, 40 F. Supp. 2d 15 (D.D.C. 1999)
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024)
Stanley Sporkin - Wikipedia, en.wikipedia.org
IRS Automatic Revocation List, www.irs.gov
OpenSecrets, American Federation of Teachers Political Spending, www.opensecrets.org
National Association of Scholars, Faculty Political Donations Study, 2023, www.nas.org
Whistleblower Case Against IRS Over Gates Foundation Tax Status, brokentruth.tv, February 6, 2025
StartCHURCH Blog, “The Myths of the ‘508 Free Church’ Status”
Americans United for Separation of Church and State
