A federal judge in Texas has dealt a serious setback to conservative Christians seeking the right to support political causes and candidates while maintaining tax-exempt status.
District Judge J. Campbell Barker
District Judge J. Campbell Barker in Tyler ruled March 31 he had no authority to approve a proposed settlement agreement between the Internal Revenue Service and plaintiffs in National Religious Broadcasters v. Bessent, which challenged the constitutionality of the Johnson Amendment.
The NRB was joined by Intercessors for America and Texas congregations Sand Springs Church and First Baptist Church in Waskom in the 2024 action filed to overturn the 1954 law barring faith groups, charities and other nonprofit organizations from opposing or endorsing political candidates.
The Biden administration tried unsuccessfully to have the lawsuit against the IRS dismissed. The Trump administration then reversed the government’s position, and both parties submitted a consent judgment to Barker, a Trump appointee, agreeing the amendment violates free speech rights.
Claims the seldomly applied Johnson Amendment would result in financial and free-speech harms are hypothetical and could not be remedied with further litigation even if realized, Barker said.
It is “not obvious that the government will ever assess an income tax against plaintiffs or impose any other tax consequence under the Johnson Amendment,” the ruling says. “The prospect of a taxpayer paying a tax that results in financial ruin not fixable by a later tax refund — the reason for this narrow, equitable exception — is thus not present.”
Granting the consent judgment “would have been unhealthy for our democracy because it would allow churches to become unaccountable political action committees.”
Barker suggested the plaintiffs take a legislative approach to achieving their goals because Congress “is the appropriate body to weigh the relevant, policy-laden considerations, such as the harshness of the present law, the consequences of an unjustified revocation of 501(c)(3) status, (and) the number of organizations in any year threatened with such revocation.”
The NRB said Barker’s decision to dismiss the lawsuit will be appealed to the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
“The plaintiffs here have no other forum to challenge the free speech restrictions imposed by the Johnson Amendment’s limitation on the right of nonprofits to speak about candidates, unless they first violate the law and then become subject to IRS enforcement action. No person should be forced to place themselves in legal jeopardy to protect their constitutional rights. And the Supreme Court has backed this conclusion on numerous occasions.”
The statement, which ignored the IRS’ vow not to enforce the law, added that plaintiffs in the case have not violated the amendment. “Instead, they engage in self-censorship because of the Johnson Amendment’s impact on their First Amendment freedoms.”
Americans United for Separation of Church and State said the latest ruling strengthens the principle of church-state separation enshrined in the First Amendment. The organization failed in its attempt earlier this year to intervene in the case.
“We’re glad the Johnson Amendment will remain a strong bulwark to stop religious extremists from exploiting houses of worship,” AU President Rachel Laser said. “Tax-free giving to charities should fund charitable work, not partisan politics. The proposed settlement agreement to exempt only houses of worship and not secular nonprofits would have been unfair and a violation of church-state separation.”
Granting the consent judgment “would have been unhealthy for our democracy because it would allow churches to become unaccountable political action committees. The court was right to reject the administration’s attempt to use the courts to rewrite our laws.”
Related articles:
Judge says AU may not intervene in Johnson Amendment litigation
BJC agrees with demand to retain Johnson Amendment
Trump administration says it won’t enforce Johnson Amendment
What good is a law that’s not enforced? | Analysis by Mark Wingfield
Does the Johnson Amendment have any teeth left?
‘Anti-Christian bias’ task force focuses solely on grievances of evangelicals