Can someone explain to me the holding in the Philadelphia case?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

Religious organizations should be as inclusive or exclusive as they see fit as long as they don't accept public tax dollars.

[FBaggins]

1. It was actually as close to a "win" as we were likely to see

Existing jurisprudence (from Employment Division v. Smith) says that governments can regulate in areas that would otherwise be protected by the free exercise clause if those regulations are neutral and "generally applicable" (i.e., they apply to everyone).

The fear was that Smith would fall and a new standard would be crafted that placed even more constraints on governments when they clashed with religion. There were three justices pretty clearly ready to do so and 2-3 more who sound like they would have considered it if there wasn't a way to rule against Philadelphia within the existing Smith framework.

Roberts was able to craft a ruling that plausibly put Philadelphia's policy outside of the Smith framework - and thus there was no reason to revisit/overturn Smith. That allowed him to get a unanimous decision.

[elleng]

2. Thanks;

important to explain.

[ShazamIam]

3. I think the rule for avoiding taxes it to keep out of the political life, something conservative

and religious folks have never observed. Though a few years ago I remember some particular churches and or church leaders were sent some warning letters to cease and desist with the political activities.

IRS Guidelines for religious organizations.

https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/charities-churches-and-politics


https://montanadailygazette.com/2021/06/17/irs-denies-tax-exemption-to-tx-religious-group-prayer-bible-reading-boosts-republicans-over-dems/