Speiser v. Randall

Background

Two honorably discharged World War II veterans applied for California’s veterans’ property-tax exemption but refused to sign a new loyalty declaration added to the application. The declaration said the applicant did not advocate overthrow of the United States or California government or support a foreign government in hostilities. Local assessors denied the exemptions because the veterans struck out the declaration, and the California Supreme Court upheld those denials under a state constitutional amendment and a implementing tax statute.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether the State could make a veteran prove he did not engage in proscribed advocacy before getting a tax exemption. Assuming arguendo the State might deny exemptions to persons who actually engage in criminal advocacy, the Court held California’s enforcement procedure was unfair because it placed the entire burden on the taxpayer to prove a negative about his speech. The opinion says speech has extraordinary value and that the State must come forward with adequate proof before it can deny benefits that would deter lawful expression.

Real world impact

The Court reversed and remanded, holding that California may not require veterans to execute the declaration or to bear the burden of proof as a condition for the exemption. Assessors may investigate, but they must present sufficient evidence before denying speech-related tax benefits. The Court did not finally decide whether the state amendment itself is invalid, so the ruling limits procedures rather than resolving the amendment’s ultimate validity.