Full Breakdown
Federal Judge Rejects Settlement Allowing Churches to Endorse Political Candidates
4/1/2026, 6:24:26 AM
Legal Ruling on the Johnson Amendment
On March 31, 2026, U.S. District Judge J. Campbell Barker in Tyler, Texas, dismissed a lawsuit that sought to permit churches to endorse political candidates without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status. This ruling represents a significant setback for the Trump administration and conservative groups advocating for the repeal of the Johnson Amendment, a provision in the U.S. tax code that has prohibited nonprofits, including religious organizations, from endorsing political candidates since its enactment in 1954.
The lawsuit was initiated by several Texas churches and the National Religious Broadcasters (NRB), which argued that the Johnson Amendment infringed upon their First Amendment rights by restricting their ability to discuss political matters with their congregations. The IRS had proposed a settlement that would exempt traditional religious communications from the Johnson Amendment, but Judge Barker ruled that he lacked jurisdiction to approve the agreement, citing the Tax Anti-Injunction Act, which prevents courts from blocking tax collection.
Implications of the Ruling
Judge Barker's decision underscores the complexities surrounding the intersection of tax law and religious expression. He noted that any ruling declaring the Johnson Amendment inapplicable to specific conduct would directly affect tax collection, thus falling under the purview of the Anti-Injunction Act. Barker emphasized that the plaintiffs could pursue other legal avenues to challenge the enforcement of the Johnson Amendment, such as suing after taxes are collected.
The ruling has drawn mixed reactions. Rachel Laser, president of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, praised the decision, asserting that it protects against the exploitation of houses of worship for political purposes. Conversely, Michael Farris, NRB's general counsel, expressed disappointment, indicating plans to appeal the ruling, arguing that it overlooked an exemption that would allow the case to proceed.
Broader Context and Reactions
The Johnson Amendment has been a contentious issue, particularly among conservative religious groups who argue that it limits their freedom of speech. The Trump administration had previously supported efforts to challenge this law, contrasting with the Biden administration's defense of its constitutionality. Despite the ruling, some conservative pastors have indicated intentions to intensify their political rhetoric, while organizations like the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops reaffirmed their commitment to avoiding candidate endorsements.
Historically, enforcement of the Johnson Amendment has been inconsistent, with reports indicating numerous violations by churches that have gone uninvestigated by the IRS. This ruling may further influence the ongoing debate about the role of religious organizations in political discourse and the implications for tax-exempt status.
Verbatim Quotes
- “the Johnson Amendment will remain a strong bulwark to stop religious extremists from exploiting houses of worship.” — Rachel Laser, President, Americans United for Separation of Church and State
- “Relief enjoining the Johnson Amendment’s enforcement or declaring that it does not apply to specific conduct would thus directly bear on the amount of tax that could be collected,” — Judge J. Campbell Barker
What's Next
Following this ruling, the NRB plans to appeal, potentially prolonging the legal battle over the Johnson Amendment and its implications for religious organizations and political endorsements. The outcome of this appeal could have lasting effects on the relationship between church and state in the United States.
