July 31, 2025
By Lyzz Leise
On July 7, the IRS joined a motion in federal litigation in Texas, taking the position that the Johnson Amendment is unconstitutional because it violates the First Amendment rights of houses of worship to the free exercise of religion and freedom of speech.
Enacted in the 1950s, the Johnson Amendment prohibits 501(c)(3) organizations from participating or intervening in political campaigns for or against candidates for public office. Exempt organizations cannot make statements supporting or opposing political candidates without potentially losing their tax-exempt status as a 501(c)(3) organization. Since its adoption, the Johnson Amendment has been viewed as a tradeoff: the public benefit of tax-exempt income comes at the cost of not using that public benefit to support or oppose candidates for public office. But the IRS changed its stance last month in a joint motion requesting a consent judgment filed with the plaintiffs, the National Religious Broadcasters and several churches.
The motion argues that when a house of worship speaks about politics to its members it does not violate the Johnson Amendment because it is not “participating” or “intervening” in a political campaign. Rather, it says such occurrences are less like campaigning and more akin to family members discussing candidates. The motion goes on to assert that the Johnson Amendment violates the free exercise of religion because houses of worship teach or instruct their members on all aspects of life, including how the positions of political candidates may or may not be in accord with their beliefs. In response, the joint motion asks the Court to order a consent judgment enjoining the IRS from enforcing the Johnson Amendment against houses of worship for speaking to their members regarding political candidates.
This change will likely be embraced to varying degrees by different faiths and denominations, with some fully supporting it while others may be more hesitant to do so. For instance, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops announced on July 8 that the Catholic Church would maintain “its stance of not endorsing or opposing political candidates.” while the president of the Southern Baptist Convention said the motion, “recognizes our freedom of speech and should encourage pastors all the more to preach the Bible clearly, courageously, and convictionally.”
Importantly, the implications of this motion reach far beyond religious organizations. If religious organizations are no longer limited by the Johnson Amendment, other 501(c)(3) organizations, including those organized for charitable or educational purposes, may challenge the Johnson Amendment on the same basis of violating their freedom of speech rights. If such challenges are made and succeed, it is reasonable to expect that 501(c)(3) organizations will be far more vocal going forward in supporting or opposing political candidates depending on their various missions. With close to 1.5 million exempt organizations across the United States, ending enforcement of the Johnson Amendment will reflect, and perhaps contribute to, the increasing role of politics in our society, with the consequences unclear.
This article is provided for general information purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. Those requiring legal advice are encouraged to consult with their attorney.
