A rabbi, a priest, and a presidential nominee walk into a bar. Up until now, that might have only been the setup of a bad joke. For a very long time, it’s been more or less against the law for clergy to participate in political endorsements. But all that’s about to change.
In a case that’s been closely watched by religious liberty advocates and constitutional lawyers alike, several churches and religious broadcasters squared off against the IRS in federal court—only to reach a truce. Here’s what you need to know about the case, the law at issue, and what the parties have agreed to.
Legal Backdrop: The Johnson Amendment
If you’ve ever wondered why pastors, rabbis, or imams don’t typically endorse political candidates from the pulpit, the Johnson Amendment is the reason. Enacted in 1954, this provision of the Internal Revenue Code (Section 501(c)(3)) says that tax-exempt organizations can’t participate or intervene in political campaigns for (or against) candidates for public office.
This means they cannot endorse, oppose, or financially support political candidates. However, these organizations can engage in issue advocacy, voter education, candidate forums (if neutral), and limited lobbying activities that don't constitute a substantial part of their operations. Religious leaders can express personal political views outside their official capacity, and organizations can discuss political issues as long as they don't explicitly support or oppose specific candidates for office.
The penalty? Loss of tax-exempt status. In theory, this means that while for-profit companies and other types of nonprofits can speak freely about political candidates, churches find themselves uniquely muzzled. Since most churches (and other religious organizations, such as temples, synagogues, and mosques) in the country are classified as 501(c)(3) organizations, they would theoretically have no real alternative if they want to keep their sweet tax break. For years, critics have argued that this law chills free speech and religious exercise.
Pros and Cons
Supporters argue it protects the integrity of both religious institutions and the political process by preventing tax-exempt organizations from becoming vehicles for partisan politics. The amendment ensures that taxpayers aren't indirectly subsidizing political campaigns through religious organizations' tax exemptions. It also makes sure that churches remain focused on spiritual missions rather than political agendas, and prevents wealthy donors from funneling campaign contributions through religious organizations for tax benefits. Ultimately, the amendment helps maintain public trust in both religious and governmental institutions by keeping them distinct and free from undue influence over each other.
But in practice, the IRS has almost never stripped a church of its tax-exempt status for sermons or religious messages delivered during services. Part of it is legal caution: the IRS is well aware that policing what pastors, priests, or rabbis say from the pulpit raises thorny First Amendment issues. Courts have long recognized that religious speech—especially when it’s woven into worship—is at the heart of constitutional protection. The government is understandably wary of wading into questions about what counts as a sermon versus what counts as a campaign speech, or of investigating the theological content of a church service.
There’s also a practical side. The IRS is a tax agency, not a watchdog for political purity in the pews. Investigating churches is politically fraught and resource-intensive, and it risks accusations of religious discrimination or government overreach. As a result, the agency has generally reserved enforcement for the most egregious or explicit cases—like when a church takes out newspaper ads endorsing a candidate, or when campaign materials are distributed as part of church activities.
For most churches, this means that the Johnson Amendment functions more as a chilling effect than as an active threat. This gap between the law on the books and the law in action has been fueling ongoing debates about whether the Johnson Amendment is constitutional—or even workable—in the first place. Recently, that debate resulted in a legal challenge that changed the law.
Churches Sue IRS
Fast-forward to last summer and the lead-up to the 2024 presidential election. National Religious Broadcasters, Intercessors for America, and two Baptist churches in Texas filed a lawsuit against the IRS and its Commissioner, Billy Long.
At the heart of their complaint is a claim that the Johnson Amendment—both in its sweeping language and the way the IRS enforces it—tramples on their constitutional rights. Specifically, they claimed it violates the First Amendment’s guarantees of free speech and religious exercise, the Fifth Amendment’s "Void for Vagueness" doctrine, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act’s shield for faith-driven expression.
The plaintiffs asked a federal court in Tyler, Texas, for two things: (1) a declaration that the Johnson Amendment is unconstitutional as it applies to their religious speech, and (2) an order stopping the IRS from enforcing it against them when they speak about politics from a faith perspective during worship.
But instead of fighting it out to the bitter end, they decided to settle the matter through a consent judgment—a sort of court-approved truce that binds both sides.
A Deal Is Struck
Instead of striking down the ban on political activity for all nonprofits, the IRS agreed to a narrower exemption: churches and houses of worship can now endorse political candidates to their own congregations during religious services, without risking their tax-exempt status. Under the proposed consent judgment, the IRS agrees not to enforce the Johnson Amendment against the plaintiff churches for speech that happens through their usual channels of communication, when that speech is about electoral politics viewed through the lens of faith.
What’s covered? Sermons, teachings, or other communications from a house of worship to its congregation, in connection with religious services, on matters of faith, even when those matters intersect with electoral politics. But the judgment doesn’t give churches carte blanche to campaign for candidates in every context. The focus is on speech “internal to a house of worship, between the house of worship and its congregation, in connection with religious services.” The IRS likened such endorsements to having a “family discussion.”
New Questions Raised
The new rule formalizes what had long been the IRS’s unofficial practice of avoiding enforcement against sermons or religious speech, but for the first time makes it explicit and legally binding, at least for the plaintiffs in this case.
Critics warn that this carveout could lead to increased political activity in churches and even potential abuse of nonprofit status for campaign purposes. Legal experts, meanwhile, are already bracing for a new wave of litigation and regulatory headaches.
The rule, as written, focuses on communications “to the congregation,” but what does that mean in an era where sermons are livestreamed, posted on YouTube, or blasted out via email and social media? If a church posts an endorsement on its website, does that count as a private message, or does it become a public campaign ad? And how will the IRS (or the courts) draw those lines without wading into thorny First Amendment territory?
These are all questions that the new change will make future courts answer. Perhaps ironically, there might be more lawsuits on the horizon, not fewer.
Related Resources:
- PACs Increasingly Using Social Media Influencers (FindLaw's Law and Daily Life)
- The First Amendment's Establishment Clause (FindLaw's U.S. Constitution)
- U.S. Federal Campaign Finance Laws (FindLaw's Learn About the Law)
