IRS eases restrictions on churches engaging in politics: Key details

The IRS Reverses Longstanding Policy on Church Involvement in Politics

In a significant shift, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has reversed decades of legal precedent by stating that churches and other religious 501(c)(3) organizations can endorse political candidates under certain conditions. This move comes through a July 7 court filing that introduces a narrow exception to the Johnson Amendment, a rule that has prohibited tax-exempt organizations like churches from engaging in politics since 1954.

The Johnson Amendment was introduced by former President Lyndon B. Johnson when he was serving as the U.S. Senate majority leader. It barred all tax-exempt organizations, including churches and charities, from "directly or indirectly" participating in politics, particularly in endorsing or opposing candidates.

This change has sparked debate among various groups. Advocates argue that it enhances the First Amendment rights of religious organizations, while critics are concerned about the potential for increased political influence by churches and the implications for the separation of church and state.

Background of the Lawsuit

The July 7 filing stems from a lawsuit filed in Texas in September 2024 on behalf of the National Religious Broadcasters, an international association of evangelical Christian communicators, and Intercessors for America, a conservative Christian prayer advocacy group. Two Texas churches also joined as plaintiffs: First Baptist Church Waskom in Waskom, Texas, and Sand Springs Church in Athens, Texas.

The case raises concerns about the broader implications of allowing religious organizations to engage in political activities. The Freedom From Religion Foundation, which includes nearly 40,000 members such as atheists, agnostics, and skeptics, expressed shock at the reversal of the long-standing policy. The foundation has previously reported several pastors and churches to the IRS for what it views as prohibited political speech.

For example, the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association was reported in September 2024 over its election guide that was perceived to have a "clear bias and preference for Donald Trump and Republicans." Similarly, New Birth Missionary Baptist Church in Georgia was reported after former Vice President Kamala Harris was invited to speak at a worship service, with Pastor Jamal Bryant making comments suggesting the church was urging congregants to vote for her.

Concerns About Constitutional Rights

Legal experts have raised concerns about the constitutional implications of this new policy. Dan Mach, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief, stated that the exemption "raises serious constitutional concerns" by favoring religious viewpoints over nonreligious ones when distributing tax subsidies and benefits.

Chris Line, legal counsel for the Freedom From Religion Foundation, emphasized the disparity between tax rules for religious organizations and other charitable entities. He pointed out that churches are now allowed to violate the law, while other groups, including the foundation itself, are not given the same exceptions.

The American Humanist Association expressed disappointment with the decision, calling it a boost for the religious right and Christian nationalists. They argued that the ruling allows for a flood of dark money influencing elections, with billionaires potentially funneling funds through churches to buy political influence, all subsidized by American taxpayers.

Support for the Decision

Despite the concerns, some individuals and groups have celebrated the decision. Former President Donald Trump called it a "terrific" move, expressing his support for churches being able to endorse political candidates. Robert Jeffress, senior pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas, praised the change, stating it would never have happened without the leadership of Trump.

However, the Freedom From Religion Foundation has also reported Jeffress to the IRS for his overt support of Trump and former Vice President Mike Pence in 2020.

Efforts to Remove the Johnson Amendment

Efforts to remove the Johnson Amendment have been ongoing. During his first term, Trump pledged to "totally destroy" the amendment and later claimed to have "gotten rid of" it, although the law remained part of the tax code. In May 2017, he issued an executive order directing the Treasury Department to avoid penalizing religious organizations for speech about "moral or political issues from a religious perspective."

Legislative efforts have also aimed to allow charitable organizations, including churches, to make political statements if they align with their tax-exempt purpose. Rep. Mark Harris and Sen. James Lankford introduced the Free Speech Fairness Act, which sought to permit such statements.

Public Opinion on Church Political Endorsements

Public opinion on whether churches should endorse political candidates is mixed. A 2024 survey conducted by Lifeway Research found that only 29% of U.S. adults believe it is appropriate for pastors to publicly endorse candidates during church services, while 60% disagree. However, the percentage of Americans who see political endorsements during church services as acceptable has risen steadily over the past 16 years, increasing from 13% in 2008 to 29% in 2024.

Legal Challenges to the Johnson Amendment

The Johnson Amendment has faced previous legal challenges, but courts have consistently upheld it. In the 1970s, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a nonprofit religious organization was not entitled to a tax exemption because its actions were seen as seeking to influence legislation and attack candidates. More recently, a U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that a religious organization that had its tax-exempt status revoked did not establish a First Amendment violation.

Notably, speakers at the inaugural meeting of Trump’s Religious Liberty Commission in June supported challenges to the Johnson Amendment, expressing a belief that the First Amendment does not prevent the government from promoting religion as a social good.

The debate surrounding the IRS's new policy highlights the complex interplay between religious freedom, political engagement, and constitutional rights. As the implications of this change unfold, the conversation will likely continue to evolve.