## Facts

- Big Mama Rag, Inc. (BMR) was a Colorado nonprofit with a feminist orientation that published a monthly newspaper and conducted workshops, seminars, lectures, a radio program, and maintained a free library focused on women’s issues.
- BMR applied for recognition as a tax-exempt organization under I.R.C. § 501(c)(3), asserting it was “educational” and/or “charitable” under the Treasury Regulations.
- The IRS denied the application, citing multiple concerns, including that BMR’s newspaper was commercial, its activities included political/legislative content, and its materials were viewed as “promoting lesbianism.”
- The denial relied in part on Treas. Reg. § 1.501(c)(3)-1(d)(3), which treated advocacy organizations as “educational” only if their presentations constituted a “full and fair exposition of the pertinent facts” enabling the public to form “independent opinions.”
- BMR sued in federal district court, arguing it qualified for exemption and that the regulatory standard and its application violated the First Amendment, the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment, and unconstitutional-conditions principles.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the government, upholding the denial.
- BMR appealed to the D.C. Circuit.

## Issues

1. Whether the “full and fair exposition of the pertinent facts” requirement in Treas. Reg. § 1.501(c)(3)-1(d)(3), as used to evaluate advocacy-oriented applicants for § 501(c)(3) status, was unconstitutionally vague under the First Amendment.
2. Whether the court needed to reach BMR’s additional constitutional claims once it resolved the vagueness challenge.

## Decision

- The D.C. Circuit reversed the district court’s summary judgment for the government and remanded.
- The court held that the Treasury Regulation’s definition of “educational,” specifically the “full and fair exposition” requirement, was unconstitutionally vague in violation of the First Amendment.
- Because the court resolved the case on vagueness grounds, it did not decide the remaining constitutional challenges.

## Legal Principles

- When government standards affect speech or expressive activity, the First Amendment requires narrow, objective, and definite criteria to provide fair notice and constrain official discretion.
- A regulation is unconstitutionally vague if it fails to give meaningful guidance to regulated parties and permits arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement.
- A content-evaluative standard conditioning § 501(c)(3) benefits on whether advocacy is “full” and “fair” lacks administrable benchmarks and risks viewpoint-based enforcement, particularly against controversial or nonmainstream speakers.

## Conclusion

The D.C. Circuit invalidated the IRS’s “full and fair exposition” test for identifying “educational” advocacy under § 501(c)(3) as impermissibly vague, reversing the denial of tax-exempt recognition and remanding for further proceedings under constitutionally sufficient standards.


Big Mama Rag, Inc. v. United States, 631 F.2d 1030 (D.C. Cir. 1980)