A federal lawsuit that could decide whether pastors may endorse political candidates from the pulpit without losing their churches' tax-exempt status is back in play, with a renewed legal challenge filed just months before the 2026 midterm elections. The case pits longstanding IRS enforcement policy against First Amendment claims raised by religious broadcasters, two Texas churches, and a growing coalition of conservative legal organizations.
At the center of the dispute is the Johnson Amendment, a 1954 provision in the federal tax code that bars all tax-exempt organizations, including churches, from endorsing or opposing candidates for public office. Violators risk losing their 501(c)(3) status, which shields donations from taxation. For decades, the provision has drawn fire from religious leaders and conservative lawmakers who argue it muzzles political speech in houses of worship.
Now, as USA Today reported, the legal fight has been renewed with fresh filings that aim to settle the question before voters head to the polls this November.
The Trump administration has pushed to neutralize the Johnson Amendment since its first term. At the 2017 National Prayer Breakfast, President Donald Trump pledged action in blunt terms.
"I will get rid of and totally destroy the Johnson Amendment and allow our representatives of faith to speak freely and without fear of retribution."
That same year, Trump signed an executive order directing the Treasury Department to disregard the amendment when dealing with religious organizations. Republican lawmakers followed up by introducing legislation this year to strip the provision from the tax code entirely.
The IRS itself then took an extraordinary step. In a joint court filing with the National Religious Broadcasters Association (NRB), the agency asked a federal court in Texas to halt enforcement of the Johnson Amendment against religious plaintiffs, as AP News detailed. The filing effectively conceded that the government should not punish churches for pastoral speech about candidates. The Trump Department of Justice reversed the Biden DOJ's earlier position, which had defended the amendment's constitutionality.
The result was a proposed consent decree between the IRS and the NRB, along with two Texas churches, that would have exempted certain religious communications from the Johnson Amendment's reach. Had it survived, the settlement would have created a practical safe harbor for endorsements delivered during sermons, religious broadcasts, and ministry communications.
The settlement did not survive. U.S. District Judge J. Campbell Barker dismissed the consent decree, ruling that he lacked jurisdiction under the Tax Anti-Injunction Act, a statute that generally prevents courts from blocking tax enforcement before a tax is actually assessed. The decision landed like a cold splash on the religious liberty coalition that had negotiated the deal.
The broader question of government pressure on religious institutions has drawn increasing attention in recent years. The DOJ recently intervened on behalf of Catholic nuns facing prison under a New York gender identity mandate, underscoring the tension between state regulatory power and religious freedom claims.
Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, framed Judge Barker's ruling as a setback for free speech in churches.
"He rejected a consent decree between the National Religious Broadcasters (NRB) and the Justice Department addressing the so-called Johnson Amendment, which empowers the IRS to restrict the free speech rights of churches and religious ministries."
On the other side, Rachel Laser of Americans United for Separation of Church and State praised the outcome. She called the Johnson Amendment "a strong bulwark to stop religious extremists from exploiting houses of worship."
The NRB, backed by the Family Research Council, has appealed Judge Barker's dismissal to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, as Breitbart reported. The appellate court will need to decide whether the Tax Anti-Injunction Act truly bars the settlement or whether the parties can reach an agreement that sidesteps the jurisdictional problem.
The timing is not accidental. With midterm elections approaching, both sides understand that a ruling before November could reshape how thousands of pastors, religious broadcasters, and ministry leaders communicate with their congregations about candidates. A favorable Fifth Circuit decision would effectively green-light endorsements from the pulpit across Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, and could set the stage for a broader national precedent.
Investigators and courts will need to determine several unresolved questions. Authorities have not publicly confirmed whether the IRS has enforced the Johnson Amendment against any church in recent years, a gap that cuts both ways. Supporters of repeal argue the provision creates a chilling effect even without active enforcement. Defenders say the lack of enforcement proves the amendment is not the speech-crushing weapon its critics describe.
The legal arguments run deeper than tax policy. The NRB and its allies contend that the Johnson Amendment violates the Free Exercise Clause and the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment by singling out religious speech for a penalty that secular speakers do not face. A private citizen can endorse any candidate from any platform. A pastor who does the same thing during a sermon risks the financial foundation of the entire church.
Churches across the country have faced a range of government actions in recent years, from regulatory mandates to protests targeting worship services. Several states have moved to make church disruptions a felony after a Minnesota protest sparked a federal crackdown, reflecting a broader political environment in which the legal boundaries around religious institutions remain contested.
Opponents counter that tax exemption is a government benefit, not a right, and that conditions on that benefit do not amount to censorship. They warn that allowing churches to function as political action committees while retaining tax-exempt status would open the door to untraceable dark money flowing through religious organizations.
Republican lawmakers have signaled they intend to press the legislative route regardless of how the courts rule. Bills introduced this year would repeal the Johnson Amendment outright, removing the restriction for all 501(c)(3) organizations, not just churches. Whether those bills can clear the Senate remains uncertain.
The Fifth Circuit has not announced a timeline for oral arguments or a decision. Legal observers expect the court to move with unusual speed given the midterm calendar, but no scheduling order has been made public.
If the appeals court reverses Judge Barker and reinstates the consent decree, the practical effect would be immediate: the IRS would be bound by its own agreement not to enforce the Johnson Amendment against the named religious plaintiffs. Other churches and ministries could then cite the decree as persuasive authority, even if it does not technically bind the IRS nationwide.
If the Fifth Circuit upholds the dismissal, the NRB and its allies would face a choice between petitioning the Supreme Court or waiting for Congress to act. Either path could take years, leaving pastors in legal limbo through at least one more election cycle.
The IRS has not publicly stated whether it plans to enforce the Johnson Amendment against any church in the interim. That silence leaves religious leaders guessing about the real-world consequences of speaking their minds about candidates.
This case sits at the intersection of tax law, election law, and constitutional rights. It tests whether the government can condition a financial benefit on the surrender of political speech, and whether churches occupy a special place in that calculus.
For conservative legal advocates, the answer is straightforward: the First Amendment does not stop at the church door. For their opponents, the answer is equally clear: tax exemption comes with strings, and one of those strings is staying out of partisan politics.
The Fifth Circuit will not settle that debate for good. But its ruling could determine whether millions of churchgoing voters hear their pastors speak freely about candidates this November, or whether the 72-year-old Johnson Amendment continues to cast its long, quiet shadow over Sunday morning.
When the government holds the power to silence a pastor by threatening his church's finances, the question stops being about tax policy. It becomes about whether the First Amendment still means what it says.
