Lead Stories

A non-religious nonprofit corporation may argue that its religious freedom has been infringed by the government’s denial of approval for a program to address the abuse of opioids through overdose prevention services, including supervised illegal drug use, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.  It has returned the case to the District Court in Philadelphia to determine whether the denial violates the corporation’s religious freedom under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

A trustee of a nonprofit private secondary school is not an “agent” subject to protection from retaliation under the federal False Claims Act, a federal District Court in South Carolina has ruled.  The trustee’s claim has been dismissed on summary judgment.

The Internal Revenue Service has joined with two Evangelical churches in Texas and the National Association of Religious Broadcasters in proposing a settlement of their litigation to overturn the so-called “Johnson Amendment” to the Tax Code that prohibits churches and other charities from endorsing or opposing candidates for public office.  (See Nonprofit Issues^®, Vol. XXXIV, No. 4)

Directors of a Minnesota nonprofit corporation who were sued by another director for defamation are immune from liability under the state’s volunteer immunity law, an appellate court in Minnesota has ruled.  The director’s claim for vicarious liability of the corporation has also been denied because the organization had already dissolved.

The U.S. Supreme Court, as expected, has reversed a decision of the Wisconsin Supreme Court and held that the Catholic Charities Bureau and four affiliates in Superior WI qualify for the religious exemption to the state unemployment compensation law.  In a unanimous decision, the Court had held that the state court’s interpretation of the rule does not survive strict scrutiny under the First Amendment.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has clarified its standard for determining whether a charity should lose its state charitable tax exemption for violating its requirement to operate “entirely free” from private profit motive.  It has held that an executive compensation bonus based in part on the economic results of a hospital is permissible where the total compensation is reasonable and is within the fair market value when compared to similar executives in similar institutions.