Staff Reports
Americans shouldn’t have to choose between worship and worrying whether the IRS will come knocking. A fight over the Johnson Amendment — the rule that says churches and other 501(c)(3) groups can’t endorse political candidates — is back in court, and the stakes are plain: free speech, religious liberty, and whether the federal government gets to tell pastors what to preach.
The case in the Fifth Circuit: what’s really at issue
Here’s the short version: the National Religious Broadcasters, Intercessors for America, and two Texas churches sued the IRS. They wanted a narrow deal that would let pastors speak about candidates from the pulpit during worship without fear of losing tax benefits. The government agreed to a limited consent judgment covering those two churches, but a federal judge in Texas refused to approve it and dismissed the case. Now the Justice Department has sided with the churches on that narrow relief and asked the Fifth Circuit to let the settlement stand. That’s not the same as wiping out the Johnson Amendment nationwide — it’s a targeted fix for sermon-style speech in worship services.
Why the DOJ’s narrow move matters for free speech and church autonomy
The Justice Department, led on the filing by Assistant Attorney General Brett A. Shumate, argued the district court should have approved the settlement for the two churches and that the church-autonomy doctrine makes enforcing the Johnson Amendment against sermon-style preaching unlikely to succeed. In plain English: the government admits the law, as applied here, chills religious speech. That’s a win for pastors who say they’re being muzzled. But the DOJ stopped short of asking the court to declare the whole Johnson Amendment unconstitutional. So this is a careful, surgical step — not a full-throated repeal.
Why conservatives should care — and why liberals should stop pretending this is about tax paperwork
The Johnson Amendment was tucked into tax law decades ago. Over time it became a cudgel used to intimidate religious leaders into silence. Enforcement against churches is rare, true, but the threat alone chills speech. Judge J. Campbell Barker’s remark that plaintiffs could avoid the jurisdictional problem by giving up 501(c)(3) status was a polite way of saying “break the law first and then sue.” That’s absurd. Churches shouldn’t have to choose between preaching truth as they see it and keeping their tax status. If you believe in free speech or religious liberty, you ought to want clarity here — not bureaucratic gamesmanship that leaves pastors guessing.
What to watch next and the bottom line
The Fifth Circuit will decide whether the narrow consent judgment can stand. If it does, the immediate effect is small but meaningful: the two churches would be protected for sermon-context speech, and the administration might use that outcome to issue clearer Treasury or IRS guidance for worship services. If the court says no, the broader constitutional questions will stay unresolved and this fight will keep boiling. Either way, conservatives should pay attention. This case is about more than tax law; it’s about whether the government gets to police the pulpit. That’s a line we can’t afford to let federal agencies redraw without a fight.
