Johnson Amendment Enforcement Relaxed for Church Political Speech

By Robert Showers, Esq and Micah Schachtner, Esq.

For the first time in the Johnson Amendment’s history, the Internal Revenue Service officially agreed in July 2025 that churches may advocate for political candidates without losing their tax-exempt status, under limited circumstances. This development affects thousands of religious organizations and raises important legal compliance issues that every church leader should understand.

Background on Johnson Amendment

Congress passed the Johnson Amendment in 1954 at the urging of then-Senator Lyndon B. Johnson. The Johnson Amendment modified Internal Revenue Code section 501(c)(3) to state that tax-exempt nonprofits may not “participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.”[1]

For much of its history, the Johnson Amendment was seen as uncontroversial: supporters simply wished to prevent nonprofits from campaigning for politicians using government backing in the form of tax-exemptions and tax-deductible donations.

Modern advocates of the Amendment believe that it prevents churches from becoming “political action committees” (“PACs”) that serve particular political candidates more than they do their proper biblical purposes. Critics of the Amendment believe that it curtails the free speech of pastors and other church leaders who may have valuable insight into the character or platforms of political candidates.

Description of Recent Court Ruling

On July 7, 2025, the IRS, National Religious Broadcasters, and other related parties asked a federal district court in Texas to approve and enter their proposed consent judgment to limit enforcement of the Johnson Amendment. If that motion is granted, the court would hold that “the Johnson Amendment does not reach speech by a house of worship to its congregation . . . through its customary channels.”[2]

The nuance here is crucial: the consent judgment signals IRS non-enforcement only against a church’s political speech to its congregation, but enforcement against political expenditures and public endorsements theoretically could continue.

Supporters of this change highlight the importance of allowing full freedom of speech to churches in their political messaging to their congregations. Opponents worry that softening enforcement of the Johnson Amendment will eventually lead to blanket non-enforcement or even repeal, which they believe could give rise to “shell” churches that exist only to funnel tax-deductible donations toward political candidates.

Implications and Future Developments

In the short-term, this proposed consent judgment would have little effect because the Johnson Amendment already is rarely enforced against churches.[3] In fact, the Alliance Defending Freedom’s years-long effort to trigger enforcement largely failed: the IRS ignored thousands of deliberately political sermons, some of which pastors even sent to the agency in the mail. For that reason, future non-enforcement should result in largely the same practical outcome for churches.

Long-term effects of this initial consent judgment could vary wildly. On the one hand, the Johnson Amendment may simply remain in place to dissuade churches from more extreme involvement in political campaigns. In this case, courts might allow political speech within churches to flourish, but would still prevent churches from advocating publicly for politicians using tax-deductible donations. This paradigm would match the wishes of some prominent religious liberty scholars.[4]

Even if the Johnson Amendment were repealed, many churches would continue with business as usual, referring to political issues only as needed to further their teaching and ministry efforts. A meaningful minority of churches, however, would likely dedicate more effort and money toward promoting their favored political candidates, perhaps even transforming into quasi-PACs masquerading as religious institutions.

Progressive churches could become vehicles for Democratic political campaigns, accepting tax-deductible donations from both church and secular donors. This would force conservative Christian taxpayers to subsidize political speech they oppose. Conversely, conservative churches could exploit their nonprofit status to raise millions in tax-deductible donations to support Republican candidates. This framework predictably would create a “pendulum problem” where each side ramps up its fundraising to compete until the “church” label becomes a mockery.

Next Steps: Navigating Political Speech Under Relaxed Enforcement

A church of any stripe may now begin to wonder about its relationship with politics in this new era of reduced Johnson Amendment enforcement. The short response is that most churches will be unaffected. The IRS already overlooked most political speech from the pulpit—now, enforcement is even less likely. However, churches that wish to become more involved in political campaigns should first work with a qualified church/nonprofit attorney to determine the boundaries of allowable speech and expenditures. With the Johnson Amendment still in place, it is not so accurate to say that “anything goes.”

Disclaimer: This memorandum is provided for general information purposes only and is not a substitute for legal advice particular to your situation. No recipients of this memo should act or refrain from acting solely on the basis of this memorandum without seeking professional legal counsel. Simms Showers LLP expressly disclaims all liability relating to actions taken or not taken based solely on the content of this memorandum. 

If we can answer any further questions or provide additional information about this process, please do not hesitate to contact our attorneys Robert Showers, Esq. at hrs@simmsshowerslaw.com or Micah Schachtner, Esq.  at mjs@simmsshowerslaw.com or call 703.771.4671.

[1] I.R.C. § 501(c)(3).

[2] [Proposed] Order & Final Judgment at ¶ 6, Nat’l Religious Broadcasters v. Long, No. 6:24-cv-00311 (E.D. Tex. filed July 7, 2025).

[3] A case 25 years ago in the D.C. Circuit is one of the only examples on record. See Branch Ministries v. Rossotti, 211 F.3d 137 (D.C. Cir. 2000).

[4] Douglas Laycock, Don’t repeal the Johnson Amendment, fix it, Christian Century (Mar. 15, 2017), https://www.christiancentury.org/opinion/don-t-repeal-johnson-amendment-fix-it.