In the latest example of journalists and the online commentariat misstating the nuances of a high-stakes legal issue, dozens of headlines have been reporting that the IRS will now allow churches to endorse political candidates. While the outcome in National Religious Broadcasters v. Long does mark a shift in the IRS’ interpretation of 501(c)(3)—the tax code that grants tax-exempt status to nonprofit organizations—the resolution is not what the headlines say it is.
In 2024, National Religious Broadcasters, along with several other parties (including two churches), sued the IRS over the constitutionality of the Johnson Amendment. The amendment, which has been part of the federal tax code since 1954, prohibits tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organizations from engaging in any political campaign activity, which includes the endorsement of or opposition to political candidates. The lawsuit claimed that the Johnson Amendment violates the rights of religious organizations, including their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and free exercise of religion.
When the lawsuit began, the IRS was headed by a Biden appointee; the agency is now headed by a Trump appointee. It is therefore no surprise that the IRS has changed some policy priorities since the lawsuit began. All parties to the lawsuit came together and filed a motion asking the judge to enter a “consent judgment”—one that all parties agree on—ending the suit. If and when the court officially accepts this motion and enters an order (there is no reason to believe it will not), it will resolve the matter between the parties. But this is the private settlement of a lawsuit in a trial court, which technically only affects and binds the parties. Whatever the result, it only applies to National Religious Broadcasters and the handful of other religious organizations that filed the lawsuit. The motion does not say that the Johnson Amendment is unconstitutional or that churches can now endorse political candidates; the language is clear on this matter.
Rather, the IRS does not consider some forms of political expression as political activity or endorsement of a candidate. The communication must be “in connection with religious services through its usual channels of communication.” This likely means speech coming from the pulpit, from sermons and other communications that are normally part of a religious service—which is not the same as a church leader holding political rallies and endorsing candidates on behalf of the church. The IRS’ position in the motion is that the time and place that these political communications are appropriate remain quite limited.
Additionally, the communications must concern “matters of faith.” Religious leaders cannot simply use their sermons to speak about their political views and encourage their congregations to adopt those same views. These communications must be an application of the principles of religious faith to politics. So, if a pastor is reflecting on the church’s religious stance on marriage, family, and human sexuality, he can safely preach about the connection those teachings have to a certain campaign and the views of opposing candidates. He can even state which candidate’s position aligns with the church’s teachings. But he cannot simply give his views on the regulatory state, the current tax rate, or any other issues involved in a political campaign if those views do not spring from the religious views of the church.
So, if the outcome in this case does not mean churches are free to start endorsing candidates, what does it mean? For Catholic parishes in America, it doesn’t mean anything. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops released a statement on July 8 clarifying that its position has not changed: “The IRS was addressing a specific case, and it doesn’t change how the Catholic Church engages in public debate. The Church seeks to help Catholics form their conscience in the Gospel so they might discern which candidates and policies would advance the common good. The Catholic Church maintains its stance of not endorsing or opposing political candidates.”
Again, the outcome in National Religious Broadcasters v. Long is not a binding precedent on the IRS or on courts in future cases. But the outcome does signal that the IRS (at least during this administration) does not intend to police the practice of religious leaders preaching to their congregations about the application of religious principles to political candidates and campaigns. That position is subject to change in the future; even now, it is not an open invitation for churches to engage in campaign activity.
If religious leaders want to preach a bit more boldly about how their faith should influence certain political campaigns and how congregants should vote, perhaps they can now breathe a bit easier knowing the current administration seems unwilling to consider communication from the pulpit as impermissible campaign activity. But to be clear, the Johnson Amendment is still on the books and no court has ruled it unconstitutional. Political preachers beware; this ruling may be a policy change, but it is not an open invitation to churches to dive into political campaigns.
