Attach to Form 990 or Form 990-EZ.
Go to
www.irs.gov/Form990 for instructions and the latest information.
| (i) Name of supported organization | (ii) EIN | (iii) Type of organization (described on lines 1- 10 above (see instructions)) | (iv) Is the organization listed in your governing document? | (v) Amount of monetary support (see instructions) | (vi) Amount of other support (see instructions) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | No | |||||
|
Total |
0 | |||||
Calendar year (or fiscal year beginning in) ![]() |
(a) 2015 | (b) 2016 | (c) 2017 | (d) 2018 | (e) 2019 | (f) Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Gifts, grants, contributions, and membership fees received. (Do not include any "unusual grant.") .. | 6,194,659 | 6,407,823 | 6,247,519 | 7,201,982 | 7,479,873 | 33,531,856 |
| 2 | Tax revenues levied for the organization's benefit and either paid to or expended on its behalf.... | 0 | |||||
| 3 | The value of services or facilities furnished by a governmental unit to the organization without charge.. | 0 | |||||
| 4 | Total. Add lines 1 through 3 | 6,194,659 | 6,407,823 | 6,247,519 | 7,201,982 | 7,479,873 | 33,531,856 |
| 5 | The portion of total contributions by each person (other than a governmental unit or publicly supported organization) included on line 1 that exceeds 2% of the amount shown on line 11, column (f).. | 11,317,275 | |||||
| 6 | Public support. Subtract line 5 from line 4. | 22,214,581 | |||||
Calendar year
(or fiscal year beginning in) ![]() |
(a) 2015 | (b) 2016 | (c) 2017 | (d) 2018 | (e) 2019 | (f) Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7 | Amounts from line 4.. | 6,194,659 | 6,407,823 | 6,247,519 | 7,201,982 | 7,479,873 | 33,531,856 |
| 8 | Gross income from interest, dividends, payments received on securities loans, rents, royalties and income from similar sources... | 246 | 6 | 43 | 64 | 14 | 373 |
| 9 | Net income from unrelated business activities, whether or not the business is regularly carried on.. | ||||||
| 10 | Other income. Do not include gain or loss from the sale of capital assets (Explain in Part VI.).. | 948 | 18 | 14,745 | 1,679 | 124 | 17,514 |
| 11 | Total support. Add lines 7 through 10 | 33,549,743 | |||||
Calendar year (or fiscal year beginning in) ![]() |
(a) 2015 | (b) 2016 | (c) 2017 | (d) 2018 | (e) 2019 | (f) Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Gifts, grants, contributions, and membership fees received. (Do not include any "unusual grants.") . | ||||||
| 2 | Gross receipts from admissions, merchandise sold or services performed, or facilities furnished in any activity that is related to the organization's tax-exempt purpose | ||||||
| 3 | Gross receipts from activities that are not an unrelated trade or business under section 513 ..... | ||||||
| 4 | Tax revenues levied for the organization's benefit and either paid to or expended on its behalf... | ||||||
| 5 | The value of services or facilities furnished by a governmental unit to the organization without charge | ||||||
| 6 | Total. Add lines 1 through 5 | ||||||
| 7a | Amounts included on lines 1, 2, and 3 received from disqualified persons | ||||||
| b | Amounts included on lines 2 and 3 received from other than disqualified persons that exceed the greater of $5,000 or 1% of the amount on line 13 for the year. | ||||||
| c | Add lines 7a and 7b.. | ||||||
| 8 | Public support. (Subtract line 7c from line 6.) | 0 | |||||
Calendar year (or fiscal year beginning in) ![]() |
(a) 2015 | (b) 2016 | (c) 2017 | (d) 2018 | (e) 2019 | (f) Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9 | Amounts from line 6... | ||||||
| 10a | Gross income from interest, dividends, payments received on securities loans, rents, royalties and income from similar sources.. | ||||||
| b | Unrelated business taxable income (less section 511 taxes) from businesses acquired after June 30, 1975. | ||||||
| c | Add lines 10a and 10b. | ||||||
| 11 | Net income from unrelated business activities not included in line 10b, whether or not the business is regularly carried on. | ||||||
| 12 | Other income. Do not include gain or loss from the sale of capital assets (Explain in Part VI.) .. | ||||||
| 13 | Total support. (Add lines 9, 10c, 11, and 12.).. | ||||||
| Section A - Adjusted Net Income | (A) Prior Year |
(B) Current Year (optional) |
||||
| 1 | Net short-term capital gain | 1 | ||||
| 2 | Recoveries of prior-year distributions | 2 | ||||
| 3 | Other gross income (see instructions) | 3 | ||||
| 4 | Add lines 1 through 3 | 4 | ||||
| 5 | Depreciation and depletion | 5 | ||||
| 6 | Portion of operating expenses paid or incurred for production or collection of gross income or for management, conservation, or maintenance of property held for production of income (see instructions) | 6 | ||||
| 7 | Other expenses (see instructions) | 7 | ||||
| 8 | Adjusted Net Income (subtract lines 5, 6 and 7 from line 4) | 8 | ||||
| Section B - Minimum Asset Amount | (A) Prior Year |
(B) Current Year (optional) |
||||
| 1 | Aggregate fair market value of all non-exempt-use assets (see instructions for short tax year or assets held for part of year): | 1 | ||||
| a | Average monthly value of securities | 1a | ||||
| b | Average monthly cash balances | 1b | ||||
| c | Fair market value of other non-exempt-use assets | 1c | ||||
| d | Total (add lines 1a, 1b, and 1c) | 1d | ||||
| e |
Discount claimed for blockage or other factors (explain in detail in Part VI): |
|||||
| 2 | Acquisition indebtedness applicable to non-exempt use assets | 2 | ||||
| 3 | Subtract line 2 from line 1d | 3 | ||||
| 4 | Cash deemed held for exempt use. Enter 1-1/2% of line 3 (for greater amount, see instructions). | 4 | ||||
| 5 | Net value of non-exempt-use assets (subtract line 4 from line 3) | 5 | ||||
| 6 | Multiply line 5 by .035 | 6 | ||||
| 7 | Recoveries of prior-year distributions | 7 | ||||
| 8 | Minimum Asset Amount (add line 7 to line 6) | 8 | ||||
| Section C - Distributable Amount | Current Year | |||||
| 1 | Adjusted net income for prior year (from Section A, line 8, Column A) | 1 | ||||
| 2 | Enter 85% of line 1 | 2 | ||||
| 3 | Minimum asset amount for prior year (from Section B, line 8, Column A) | 3 | ||||
| 4 | Enter greater of line 2 or line 3 | 4 | ||||
| 5 | Income tax imposed in prior year | 5 | ||||
| 6 | Distributable Amount. Subtract line 5 from line 4, unless subject to emergency temporary reduction (see instructions) | 6 | ||||
| Section D - Distributions | Current Year | |
|---|---|---|
| 1 Amounts paid to supported organizations to accomplish exempt purposes | ||
|
2
Amounts paid to perform activity that directly furthers exempt purposes of supported organizations, in excess of income from activity |
||
| 3 Administrative expenses paid to accomplish exempt purposes of supported organizations | ||
| 4 Amounts paid to acquire exempt-use assets | ||
| 5 Qualified set-aside amounts (prior IRS approval required) | ||
| 6 Other distributions (describe in Part VI). See instructions | ||
| 7Total annual distributions. Add lines 1 through 6. | ||
|
8
Distributions to attentive supported organizations to which the organization is responsive (provide details in Part VI). See instructions |
||
| 9 Distributable amount for 2019 from Section C, line 6 | ||
| 10 Line 8 amount divided by Line 9 amount | ||
| Section E - Distribution Allocations (see instructions) |
(i) Excess Distributions |
(ii) Underdistributions Pre-2019 |
(iii) Distributable Amount for 2019 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 Distributable amount for 2019 from Section C, line 6 | ||||
|
2
Underdistributions, if any, for years prior to 2019 (reasonable cause required-- explain in Part VI). See instructions. |
||||
| 3 Excess distributions carryover, if any, to 2019: | ||||
| a From 2014....... | ||||
| b From 2015....... | ||||
| c From 2016....... | ||||
| d From 2017....... | ||||
| e From 2018....... | ||||
| fTotal of lines 3a through e | ||||
| g Applied to underdistributions of prior years | ||||
| h Applied to 2019 distributable amount | ||||
|
i
Carryover from 2014 not applied (see instructions) |
||||
| j Remainder. Subtract lines 3g, 3h, and 3i from 3f. | ||||
| 4Distributions for 2019 from Section D, line 7: | ||||
| $ | ||||
| a Applied to underdistributions of prior years | ||||
| b Applied to 2019 distributable amount | ||||
| c Remainder. Subtract lines 4a and 4b from 4. | ||||
|
5
Remaining underdistributions for years prior to 2019, if any. Subtract lines 3g and 4a from line 2. If the amount is greater than zero, explain in Part VI. See instructions. |
||||
|
6
Remaining underdistributions for 2019. Subtract lines 3h and 4b from line 1. If the amount is greater than zero, explain in Part VI. See instructions. |
||||
|
7 Excess distributions carryover to 2020. Add lines 3j and 4c. |
||||
| 8 Breakdown of line 7: | ||||
| a Excess from 2015..... | ||||
| b Excess from 2016..... | ||||
| c Excess from 2017..... | ||||
| d Excess from 2018..... | ||||
| e Excess from 2019..... | ||||
| Facts And Circumstances Test |
|---|
| Return Reference | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Pt II Ln 10 | Other Income Part II, Line 10 Description: Other income 2015: 948. 2016: 18. 2017: 14745. 2018: 1679. 2019: 124. |
| Software ID: | 19009670 |
| Software Version: |
Attach to Form 990 or 990-EZ.
Go to www.irs.gov/Form990 for the latest information.
| Return Reference | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Pt VI, Line 11b | A copy of the 990 is emailed to the members of the governing body. |
| Pt VI, Line 12c | The conflict of interest policy is completed as part of the organization's annual audit. |
| Pt VI, Line 15a | The organization reviews the compensation paid by similar organizations. |
| Pt VI, Line 15b | The organization reviews the compensation paid by similar organizations. |
| Pt VI, Line 19 | No documents are available to the public at this time. |
| Other | Page 2 Part III Line 4: Becket is a non-profit, public-interest law firm with a mission to protect the free expression of all faiths. Becket exists to vindicate a simple but frequently neglected principle: that because the religious impulse is natural to human beings, religious expression is natural to human culture. We advance that principle in three arenas-the courts of law, the court of public opinion, and the academy-both in the United States and abroad. At Becket we have defended the religious rights of people from "A to Z," from Anglicans to Zoroastrians. Our supporters represent a myriad of religions, but they all share our common vision of a world where religious freedom is respected as a fundamental human right that all are entitled to enjoy and exercise. Becket relies on its own legal team, and its lawyers are renowned experts in litigating this particular aspect of constitutional law. |
| Other | Page 2 Part III Line 4: Ball v. Ball: We represent Shawn Ball in a custody agreement allowing both parents to take children to a Christian church of their choice. Judge ruled that fathers choice of church was not Christian. We will not charge any fees or seek a fee award from the opposing party. |
| Other | Page 2 Part III Line 4: Buck v. Gordon: We represent St. Vincent Catholic Charities, a foster and adoption placement agency whose contract was terminated due to its religious beliefs on marriage and family. We did not charge any fees or seek a fee award from the opposing party. |
| Other | Page 2 Part III Line 4: Business Leaders in Christ v. University of Iowa: We represent Business Leaders in Christ, a religious student group at the University of Iowa, defending the students right to organize and be treated on equal terms as any other student group. We are not charging any fees, but will seek fees and costs from the opposing party if the suit is successful. |
| Other | Page 2 Part III Line 4: California v. Azar: We represent the Little Sisters of the Poor, defending a regulatory religious accommodation to the HHS contraception mandate issued under the Affordable Care Act, which has been challenged by the State of California, among other states. We are not charging any fees and will not have opportunity to seek fees from the opposing party. |
| Other | Page 2 Part III Line 4: Chung v. WIAA: We represent Seventh-day Adventist student athletes against Washington Interscholastic Activities Association who were barred from participating in athletic competitions due to religious Sabbath observance. We are not charging any fees, but will seek a fee award from the opposing party if the suit is successful. |
| Other | Page 2 Part III Line 4: Dalberiste v. GLE Associates: We represented Mitche Dalberiste, a Seventh-day Adventist employee of GLE Associates who was terminated due to his refusal to work on his Sabbath. Case has been appealed to the Supreme Court. We are not charging any fees or seeking a fee award from the opposing party. |
| Other | Page 2 Part III Line 4: Demkovich v. St. Andrew the Apostle Parish: We represent St. Andrew the Apostle Parish in ministerial and church autonomy case involving an employee who sued the church regarding his termination. Case is now at the Seventh Circuit. We will not charge any fees or seek a fee award from the opposing party. |
| Other | Page 2 Part III Line 4: Diocese of Madison: We represented Diocese of Madison, WI to oppose coronavirus-related restrictions on in-person worship services. The Mayor and county executive issued a new order returning houses of worship to equal footing with secular services. We did not charge any fees or seek a fee award from the opposing party. |
| Other | Page 2 Part III Line 4: Fitzgerald v. Archdiocese of Indianapolis: We represent the Archdiocese of Indianapolis in a suit involving nonrenewal of employment contracts for Catholic high school teachers who violated Catholic teachings by entering into a same-sex marriage. We did not charge any fees or seek fees from the opposing party. |
| Other | Page 2 Part III Line 4: Franciscan Alliance v. Price: We represent Franciscan Alliance, Specialty Physicians of Illinois, and the Christian Medical and Dental Associations in a Texas lawsuit against the HHS medical transition mandate issued under the Affordable Care Act. We are not charging any fees, but will seek fees and costs from the opposing party if the suit is successful. |
| Other | Page 2 Part III Line 4: Fulton v. City of Philadelphia: We represent Catholic Social Services right to provide services to foster families and children in a manner consistent with its religious beliefs. We are not charging any fees but will seek fees and costs from the opposing party if the lawsuit is successful. |
| Other | Page 2 Part III Line 4: Gonzales v. Mathis Independent School District: We represented the Gonzales children who attended a public school which required them to cut hair in violation of religious beliefs. We did not charge any fees or seek fees from the opposing party. |
| Other | Page 2 Part III Line 4: Guerrero v. Diocese of Lubbock: We represent the Diocese of Lubbock, TX, which was sued for defamation for publicizing the name of a deacon credibly accused of sexual abuse. We are not charging any fees and will not have opportunity to seek fees from the opposing party. |
| Other | Page 2 Part III Line 4: InterVarsity v. University of Iowa: We represent InterVarsity Christian Fellowship/USA and its student chapter at the University of Iowa, defending the organizations right to equal treatment in terms of its ability to select leaders who support its mission. We are not charging any fees, but will seek fees and costs from the opposing party if the suit is successful. |
| Other | Page 2 Part III Line 4: InterVarsity v. Wayne State: We represent InterVarsity Christian Fellowship/USA and its student chapter at Wayne State University, defending the organizations right to equal treatment in terms of its ability to select leaders who support its mission. We are not charging any fees, but will seek fees and costs from the opposing party if the suit is successful. |
| Other | Page 2 Part III Line 4: Katsareas v. US Navy: We represented Leo Katsareas, a devout Muslim serving in the US Navy, who sought a religious accommodation to grow a beard. The US Navy granted Katsareas a temporary accommodation. We did not charge any fees or seek fees from the opposing party. |
| Other | Page 2 Part III Line 4: Kondratyev v. City of Pensacola: We defended the City of Pensacolas decision not to remove from one of its parks a historic cross that was erected during World War I. We did not charge any fees or seek fees from the opposing party. |
| Other | Page 2 Part III Line 4: Little Sisters of the Poor v. Azar: We represent an order of Catholic sisters and their employees in a suit against the HHS contraception insurance mandate issued under the Affordable Care Act. We did not charge any fees and did not receive a fee award from the opposing party during the reporting period. |
| Other | Page 2 Part III Line 4: Maxon v. Fuller Theological Seminary: We represent Fuller Theological Seminary who was sued by a student for violating the schools religious beliefs agreement. The district court ruled in favor of the Seminary and the case is currently on appeal at the Seventh Circuit. We are not charging any fees and will not have opportunity to seek fees from the opposing party. |
| Other | Page 2 Part III Line 4: Minnesota Catholic Conference: We represented Minnesota Catholic Conference to oppose coronavirus-related restrictions on in-person worship services. The Mayor and county executive issued a new order returning houses of worship to equal footing with secular services. We did not charge any fees or seek a fee award from the opposing party. |
| Other | Page 2 Part III Line 4: New York v. HHS: We represent Dr. Frost and Christian Medical and Dental Associations arguing that no healthcare professional should be forced to choose between violating her conscience or providing compassionate medical care. We are not charging any fees, but will seek fees and costs from the opposing party if the suit is successful. |
| Other | Page 2 Part III Line 4: Obria v. HHS: We represented a faith-based medical clinic, Obria, against HHS over family planning program rules which violated First Amendment rights. We did not charge any fees or seek a fee award from the opposing party. |
| Other | Page 2 Part III Line 4: Our Lady of Guadalupe v. Morrisey-Berru: We represent Our Lady of Guadalupe (Catholic school) in a case dealing with the ministerial exception. The case was decided in July 2020. We did not charge any fees or seek a fee award from the opposing party. |
| Other | Page 2 Part III Line 4: Patterson v. Walgreens: We represented Darryl Patterson, a Seventh-day Adventist employee of Walgreens who was terminated due to his refusal to work on his Sabbath. We did not charge any fees or seek a fee award from the opposing party. |
| Other | Page 2 Part III Line 4: Payne-Elliott v. Archdiocese of Indianapolis: We represent the Archdiocese of Indianapolis in a suit involving nonrenewal of employment contracts for Catholic high school teachers who violated Catholic teachings by entering into a same-sex marriage. We have not charged any fees or sought fees from the opposing party. |
| Other | Page 2 Part III Line 4: Pennsylvania v. Trump: We represent the Little Sisters of the Poor, defending a regulatory religious accommodation to the HHS contraception mandate issued under the Affordable Care Act, which has been challenged by the State of Pennsylvania, among other states. We are not charging any fees and will not have opportunity to seek fees from the opposing party. |
| Other | Page 2 Part III Line 4: Ricks v. State of Idaho Contractors Board: We represent George Ricks who asked for exemption from Idahos requirement that he provide his Social Security Number on his application for a contractors license, as doing so violates his religious beliefs. We did not charge any fees or seek a fee award from the opposing party. |
| Other | Page 2 Part III Line 4: St. James School v. Biel: We represent St. James School (Catholic school) in a case dealing with the ministerial exception. The case was decided in July 2020. We did not charge any fees or seek a fee award from the opposing party. |
| Other | Page 2 Part III Line 4: St. Vincent Catholic Charities v. Ingham County: We represent St. Vincent Catholic Charities regarding Ingham Countys termination of their refugee services contract because they disapproved of St. Vincents religious beliefs. We are currently involved in discovery. We are not charging any fees, but will seek fees and costs from the opposing party if the suit is successful. Slockish v. U.S. Federal Highway Administration: We represent several members of the Klickitat and Cascade Tribes of the Yakima Nation, located in Washington State, in a suit seeking damages after a highway project demolished sacred burial sites. We are not charging any fees, but will seek fees and costs from the opposing party if the suit is successful. Case still being litigated. |
| Other | Page 2 Part III Line 4: Starkey v. Archdiocese of Indianapolis: We represent the Archdiocese of Indianapolis in a suit involving nonrenewal of employment contracts for Catholic high school teachers who violated Catholic teachings by entering into a same-sex marriage. We are not charging any fees or seeking fees from the opposing party. |
| Other | Page 2 Part III Line 4: Texas v. Azar: We represent the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston as co-plaintiffs in a challenge to the federal rule regarding nondiscrimination in foster care. We are not charging any fees or seeking fees from the opposing party. |
| Other | Page 2 Part III Line 4: Tucker v. Faith Bible Chapel: We represent Faith Bible Chapel in a ministerial exception and church autonomy case involving a former chaplain suing the church over his termination. We are not charging any fees or seeking fees from the opposing party. |
| Other | Page 2 Part III Line 4: University of Mary v. Azar: We represent the University of Mary; the Religious Sisters of Mercy: the Sacred Heart Mercy Health Care Center of Jackson, MN; the Sacred Heart Mercy Health Care Center of Alma, MI; and SMP Health System in a North Dakota law suit against the HHS medical transition mandate issued under the Affordable Care Act. We are not charging any fees, but will seek fees and costs from the opposing party if the suit is successful. |
| Other | Page 2 Part III Line 4: Young Israel of Tampa: We represent Young Israel of Tampas challenge to public transportation advertising regulations that discriminate against religious content and viewpoint. We are not charging any fees, but will seek fees and costs from the opposing party if the suit is successful. |
| Software ID: | 19009670 |
| Software Version: |