SRN NEWS

For more than a century, the majority of colleges and universities have not paid most taxes. The Revenue Act of 1909 excused nonprofits operating “exclusively for religious, charitable, or educational purposes” in order to continue acting in the public interest. President Donald Trump is looking to challenge that designation, complaining that colleges and universities are “indoctrinating” their students with “radical left” ideas, rather than educating them. And he has decided to start with the 488-year old Harvard University, one of the world’s most prestigious institutions of learning and the first college founded in the American colonies. On Tuesday, he targeted Harvard University in a post on his social media site, questioning whether it should remain tax-exempt “if it keeps pushing political, ideological, and terrorist inspired/supporting “Sickness?” Remember, Tax Exempt Status is totally contingent on acting in the PUBLIC INTEREST!” Tax-exempt status, which is decided by the Internal Revenue Service, means that these institutions do not pay certain kinds of taxes and that their donors receive a tax deduction when they make gifts. The rules they have to follow to maintain that status are set out in the tax code. We spoke with attorneys who specialize in nonprofit law and freedom of speech to try to answer questions about this challenge. In general, no. Colleges and universities have broad leeway to design the education they provide. Genevieve Lakier, a First Amendment scholar at the University of Chicago Law School, said the U.S. Supreme Court has laid out four essential freedoms for colleges and universities — what to teach, how to teach it, who their students are and who their professors are. “That’s the irreducible core of academic freedom and it is constitutionally protected in this country,” she said, adding the government cannot threaten funding cuts or revoking a school’s tax status as punishment for its views or what the school teaches. The First Amendment also protects the rights of other nonprofits to pursue their charitable missions under freedom of assembly, Lakier said, even if those missions are odious or the government does not like them. No, he is not supposed to, according to two nonprofit tax attorneys who wrote about a previous call from Trump to revoke the nonprofit status of colleges and universities. In 1998, Congress passed a law that forbade federal officials from telling the IRS to investigate any taxpayer in an effort to increase trust in tax enforcement. The attorneys, Ellen Aprill and Samuel Brunson, also pointed to legislation that forbade the IRS “from targeting individuals and organizations for ideological reasons,” after a controversy over how it treated Tea Party groups in 2013. The IRS recognizes multiple reasons for a nonprofit to to be exempt from paying many kinds of taxes, including pursuing charitable, religious or educational missions among many other examples. The statute specifically names sports competitions, preventing cruelty to children or animals and defending human or civil rights as exempt purposes. Nonprofits can lose their tax-exempt status for things like improperly paying its directors, endorsing a political candidate or operating a business unrelated to its charitable mission. In short, tax attorneys say nonprofits must operate “exclusively for charitable purposes,” which is a different standard than what the president referred to as, “acting in the public interest.” Phil Hackney, a law professor at the University of Pittsburgh, said, “Long history and precedent suggest that Harvard and institutions of higher education are operating for educational purposes, which are considered charitable,” under the tax code. He said it would be exceedingly difficult to make a case that a college or university was not operating for charitable purposes under current law. However, Edward McCaffery, who teaches tax policy at the University of Southern California Gould School of Law, warned there is precedent for the IRS revoking the tax-exempt status of colleges that the government could lean on. “I think to dismiss it out of hand as over-the-top bluster and that the administration has no power to unilaterally pursue it, I think that’s naive,” McCaffery said. “This could happen.” Yes. In 1983, the Supreme Court upheld a lower court decision that the IRS could deny tax-exempt status to Bob Jones University, a private Christian university that banned interracial dating and marriage on campus, and Goldsboro Christian Schools, which employed racially discriminatory admissions policies. The court found the IRS had some discretion to determine whether an organization seeking tax-exempt status met standards of “charity,” meaning that it “must serve a public purpose and not be contrary to established public policy.” Nonetheless, McCaffery said, “The ability of the IRS just to come in and deny tax exemption, it better be a very clear, long-standing, deeply held public policy, and not political preferences for certain kinds of positions, attitudes and voting patterns.” Usually, the IRS would open an audit, where it gathers evidence that a nonprofit is not operating exclusively for charitable purposes. “The IRS would have to send to Harvard a proposed revocation of its status,” Hackney said. “At that point, Harvard would have many different means to talk with the IRS about why they believed they were within the law,” including suing. However, Hackney said the U.S. Department of Treasury could implement new regulations, for example, stating that operating a diversity, equity and inclusion program is not consistent with charitable purposes. Such a change would usually take years to make and would run counter to decades of precedent, Hackney said. “I am skeptical this effort will be successful,” he said. “If it were, this would be the most dramatic change of charitable law in my lifetime and I would say in the history of our charitable law.” ___ Associated Press coverage of philanthropy and nonprofits receives support through the AP’s collaboration with The Conversation US, with funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The AP is solely responsible for this content. For all of AP’s philanthropy coverage, visit https://apnews.com/hub/philanthropy. Brought to you by www.srnnews.com

MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) — Southern Republicans are pushing their states to formally embrace the name Gulf of America — the name President Donald Trump has bestowed on the Gulf of Mexico — and require its use on maps, textbooks and signs. This week, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed two bills requiring the use of “Gulf of America” in state law and textbooks. Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry in March signed an executive order directing state materials to reflect the name change. The Louisiana Department of Education announced an update to state social studies standards to reflect the name change. Republicans are looking to cement the use of the new name designated by Trump, saying it is a point of national pride. Some Democrats have criticized the efforts as a transparent political measure. The Alabama House of Representatives on Thursday voted 72-26 to advance legislation to require state and local government entities and their employees to use the name Gulf of America. It would also require state and local entities to make “reasonable efforts” to update maps, textbooks, websites, and other materials. The bill, which passed on a vote split along party lines, now moves to the Alabama Senate. Republican Rep. David Standridge, the sponsor of the Alabama legislation, said he brought the bill to give clear direction to government entities on which name to use. He said there had been confusion about what to do. “Right now, we have an executive order that the President issued. This bill will make it clear, when you buy maps, when you buy textbooks,” Standridge said. Democrats criticized the measure as a political gesture that will cost money and end the use of a name that has been closely linked with Southern states. “It’s time for us to stop doing foolish things, and start doing things that will move us forward,” Rep. Barbara Drummond, a Democrat from Mobile, said during debate. Standridge said government entities would not be required to purchase new maps and other materials, but to make sure the new name is reflected whenever they purchase new materials. One lawmaker questioned if Republicans were rushing to embrace a name that could fade when Trump leaves office. “Are we going to change the name back to the Gulf of Mexico if we get another president in another four years?” Rep. Kenyatte Hassell, a Democrat, asked. Standridge acknowledged that another president might change the name but added that he didn’t think it was likely. “I really can’t myself imagine why a president would want to change from America to Mexico,” Standridge said after the vote. Brought to you by www.srnnews.com

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration’s claim that it can’t do anything to free Kilmar Abrego Garcia from an El Salvador prison and return him to the U.S. “should be shocking,” a federal appeals court said Thursday in a scathing order. A three-judge panel from the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously refused to suspend a judge’s decision to order sworn testimony by Trump administration officials to determine if they complied with her instruction to facilitate Abrego Garcia’s return. Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, who was nominated by Republican President Ronald Reagan, wrote that he and his two colleagues “cling to the hope that it is not naïve to believe our good brethren in the Executive Branch perceive the rule of law as vital to the American ethos.” “This case presents their unique chance to vindicate that value and to summon the best that is within us while there is still time,” Wilkinson wrote. The panel said Republican President Donald Trump’s government is “asserting a right to stash away residents of this country in foreign prisons without the semblance of due process that is the foundation of our constitutional order.” “Further, it claims in essence that because it has rid itself of custody that there is nothing that can be done. This should be shocking not only to judges, but to the intuitive sense of liberty that Americans far removed from courthouses still hold dear,” Wilkinson wrote. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court said the Trump administration must work to bring back Abrego Garcia. An earlier order by U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis “properly requires the Government to ‘facilitate’ Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador,” the high court said in an unsigned order with no noted dissents. The Justice Department appealed after Xinis on Tuesday ordered sworn testimony by at least four officials who work for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Department of Homeland Security and the State Department. The 4th Circuit panel unanimously denied the government’s request for a stay of Xinis’ order while they appeal. Its opinion says the executive and judicial branches of the federal government “come too close to grinding irrevocably against one another in a conflict that promises to diminish both.” “This is a losing proposition all around,” they wrote. “The Judiciary will lose much from the constant intimations of its illegitimacy, to which by dent of custom and detachment we can only sparingly reply. The Executive will lose much from a public perception of its lawlessness and all of its attendant contagions.” Wilkinson, the opinion’s author, was regarded as a contender for the Supreme Court seat that was ultimately filled by Chief Justice John Roberts in 2005. Wilkinson’s conservative pedigree may complicate White House efforts to credibly assail him as a left-leaning jurist bent on thwarting the Trump administration’s agenda for political purposes, a fallback line of attack when judicial decisions run counter to the president’s wishes. Joining Wilkinson in the ruling were judges Stephanie Thacker, who was nominated by Democratic President Barack Obama, and Robert Bruce King, who was nominated by Democratic President Bill Clinton. White House officials claim they lack the authority to bring back the Salvadoran national from his native country. Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele also said Monday that he would not return Abrego Garcia, likening it to smuggling “a terrorist into the United States.” While initially acknowledging Abrego Garcia was mistakenly deported, the administration has dug in its heels in recent days, describing him as a “terrorist” even though he was never criminally charged in the U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi said Wednesday that “he is not coming back to our country.” Administration officials have conceded that Abrego Garcia shouldn’t have been sent to El Salvador, but they have insisted that he was a member of the MS-13 gang. Abrego Garcia’s lawyers say there is no evidence linking him to MS-13 or any other gang. The appeals court panel concluded that Abrego Garcia deserves due process, even if the government can connect him to a gang. “If the government is confident of its position, it should be assured that position will prevail in proceedings to terminate the withholding of removal order,” the opinion says. Xinis also was skeptical of assertions by White House officials and Bukele that they were unable to bring back Abrego Garcia. She described their statements as “two very misguided ships passing in the night.” “The Supreme Court has spoken,” Xinis said Tuesday. Brought to you by www.srnnews.com

Aaron Rodgers is in no rush to make a decision about his future. The free-agent quarterback said during an appearance on “The Pat McAfee Show” on Thursday that he is “not holding anybody hostage” as he weighs whether to return for a 21st season. Rodgers was released by the New York Jets in March. The 41-year-old four-time NFL MVP has visited the Pittsburgh Steelers and talked with the Minnesota Vikings in recent weeks, but said there are certain things going on in his personal life that are currently taking precedence over anything related to football. “I have a couple people in my inner circle that are battling some difficult stuff,” Rodgers said. “I have a lot of things that are taking my attention and have, beginning in January, away from football.” Rodgers added that committing to a team is a “big thing” and indicated he will only do so when he’s ready to be all-in. He did cut down rumors that he was holding out for a multi-year contract or a big payday, saying that $10 million for one season would be enough to get him to sign. “I told every single one of the teams I talked to (that) it wasn’t about the money,” Rodgers said. The Steelers currently have plenty of cap space and plenty of room on the roster for Rodgers. Mason Rudolph and Skylar Thompson are the only two quarterbacks currently under contact. Rodgers tried to surreptitiously visit Pittsburgh’s facility last month, flying into a regional airport and renting a Chevy Malibu in an effort not to draw attention to himself. Rodgers said it was important to meet with Steelers coach Mike Tomlin and general manager Omar Khan and get a feel for the city. He left without an agreement, though everyone from Tomlin to team president Art Rooney II has indicated the meeting was productive. Rodgers also has relationships with Pittsburgh offensive coordinator Arthur Smith and quarterbacks coach Tom Arth, who worked alongside Rodgers in Green Bay during the 2006 offseason. While Pittsburgh feels like the most natural fit for Rodgers — who also worked out with recently acquired Steelers wide receiver DK Metcalf — he also said that retirement “could still be a possibility” and he doesn’t seem to be in any sort of rush even with the NFL draft looming next week. “This entire time I haven’t felt like I owed anybody a decision at any point,” he said. “(I told them) if you need to move on, need to do something, by all means, nothing but love and respect if that’s a decision to be made.” Rodgers has also been in contact with Minnesota coach Kevin O’Connell and talked to New York Giants coach Brian Daboll, whom Rodgers said has a “beautiful football mind.” Rodgers indicated he has kept the lines of communication open, but is prioritizing his personal life at the moment. “I don’t think it was fair to the Steelers or anyone to make a decision while I’m dealing with a lot off the field,” he said. ____ AP NFL: https://apnews.com/NFL Brought to you by www.srnnews.com

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia has chosen Anna Paulson, a top official at the Chicago Fed, to serve as its next president. Paulson, 60, will replace Patrick Harker on June 30, when Harker steps down after completing a 10-year term. She will participate in the Fed’s interest rate decisions and will have a vote on its rate-setting committee in 2026, and will also oversee the Philadelphia Fed’s bank regulation and payment services. Paulson is currently executive vice president and director of research at the Federal Reserve’s Chicago branch, where she has worked for more than two decades. She has focused on financial markets at the Chicago Fed and established its Insurance Initiative, which tracks financial stability and regulatory issues in the insurance industry, the Philadelphia Fed said in a statement. Brought to you by www.srnnews.com