In a significant development for religious organizations nationwide, the IRS has affirmed that churches may speak about political candidates from the pulpit without risking their nonprofit status, according to a court filing released Monday. The clarification comes as part of a proposed consent decree aimed at resolving a federal lawsuit brought by two Christian nonprofits—National Religious Broadcasters and Intercessors for America—alongside two Texas churches.
The dispute centered on the interpretation of the Johnson Amendment, a 1954 provision of the U.S. tax code that prohibits 501(c)(3) organizations, including churches, from engaging in political campaign activity. While the plaintiffs had challenged the constitutionality of the amendment in its entirety, the proposed legal resolution takes a narrower—but consequential—approach.
In a joint filing with the plaintiffs, the IRS stated that communication from a church to its congregation about candidates, when delivered as part of regular religious services or through customary religious channels, is not equivalent to campaign activity. Rather, the IRS likened such messages to a “family discussion” about civic matters—distinct from an overt attempt to influence election outcomes.
The filing underscores that this interpretation aligns with the agency’s long-standing enforcement practices and reflects a recognition of churches’ First Amendment rights.
“For many houses of worship, the exercise of their religious beliefs includes teaching or instructing their congregations regarding all aspects of life,” the IRS wrote, “including guidance concerning the impact of faith on the choices inherent in electoral politics.”
Importantly, the filing warns that broadly applying the Johnson Amendment to such religious speech would create constitutional concerns by favoring some religious traditions over others. Religions that refrain from addressing political issues would be granted greater freedom, the IRS acknowledged, while others whose doctrine compels such guidance would be unfairly restricted.
“Interpreting the Johnson Amendment to reach such communications would create serious tension with the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause,” the filing notes, warning against any interpretation that “treats religions differently based on their internal speech.”
If the court accepts the consent decree, the ruling would mark a major clarification for thousands of religious institutions, providing clearer legal protection for faith-based messages that intersect with political discourse—so long as they remain internal to the congregation and part of customary worship.
