Legal Battle Over the Johnson Amendment and Christian Nationalism

A federal court is currently deliberating a proposed settlement between the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and two churches represented by Michael Farris, a prominent figure in the Christian nationalist movement. Farris, known for his leadership roles in the Alliance Defending Freedom and the Home School Legal Defense Association, argues that the Johnson Amendment, which prohibits 501(c)(3) organizations from engaging in political campaigning, is unconstitutional. The settlement seeks to declare this amendment invalid, potentially transforming churches into unregulated entities akin to Super PACs.

Rolling Stone

The Johnson Amendment, enacted in 1954, serves as a critical safeguard by preventing tax-exempt organizations, including churches, from endorsing or opposing political candidates. This regulation is based on the premise that tax exemptions are privileges granted by the government, which can impose conditions on their use. Critics of the amendment argue that it infringes on free speech and religious freedom; however, proponents maintain that it is essential for maintaining the separation of church and state.

Rolling Stone

If approved, the settlement could significantly alter the political landscape by allowing churches to engage in political activities without the financial transparency required of other nonprofits. Currently, churches are not obligated to disclose their financial information to the IRS, creating a potential loophole for wealthy donors to fund political campaigns through tax-deductible contributions. This change could lead to an influx of money into political campaigns, undermining democratic processes and accountability.

Rolling Stone

Opposition to the proposed settlement is robust. Thirteen members of Congress, led by Representatives Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) and Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), have urged the IRS to withdraw the settlement, labeling it a "transparent end-run around Congress." They argue that allowing this settlement would open the floodgates for other organizations to seek similar exemptions, thereby eroding the Johnson Amendment's protections. Additionally, the nonprofit group Americans United for Separation of Church and State plans to defend the Johnson Amendment in court, emphasizing the need to uphold established law.

Rolling Stone

Public opinion largely favors maintaining the Johnson Amendment. According to Lifeway Research, nearly 80% of Americans oppose pastors endorsing candidates from the pulpit. Historical attempts to challenge the amendment have been unsuccessful, with courts affirming its constitutionality. The current legal maneuvering by Farris and his allies is seen as a last-ditch effort to circumvent established legal precedents.

Rolling Stone

• “Congress has repeatedly chosen to maintain the Johnson Amendment in statute, and we reject the notion that the IRS can unilaterally reinterpret 70 years of this settled law.” — Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.)

Rolling Stone

• “The court should not let Christian nationalists collude with Trump to blow a gaping hole in American democracy.” — Andrew L. Seidel, Americans United for Separation of Church and State

Rolling Stone

The outcome of this legal battle could have far-reaching implications for the intersection of religion and politics in the United States. As the court weighs the proposed settlement, the stakes are high for both the future of the Johnson Amendment and the broader principles of democratic governance.

Rolling Stone