IRS Court Filing Signals Modification to Restriction of Political Endorsements by “Church” Organizations

In a recent court filing, the IRS stated its position that certain “church” organizations’ endorsement of political candidates is an allowable activity, contrary to the long-standing ban on political endorsements by nonprofits.

In National Religious Broadcasters v. Billy Long (as acting IRS Commissioner), a coalition of religious “church” organizations sued the IRS to challenge the 1954 “Johnson Amendment,” which prohibits tax-exempt 501(c)(3) groups from participating in political campaigns.

On July 7, 2025, the IRS and the plaintiffs reached an agreement, jointly asking the court to enter a consent judgment resolving the lawsuit, essentially conceding a key point the churches had been fighting for: churches and other houses of worship can legally endorse political candidates in certain contexts without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status.

For decades, the Johnson Amendment, as detailed in Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, has required tax-exempt nonprofits, including churches, to refrain from participating in or intervening in political campaigns for public office. This restriction was intended to keep exempt organizations nonpartisan.

However, the IRS has historically been reluctant to police sermons, both for political reasons and due to legal challenges. As such, since 2009, there have been very few cases of churches losing tax-exempt status for political preaching.

In 2017, President Donald Trump issued an executive order signaling that the government should not take adverse action against religious leaders for political speech from the pulpit. However, repeated efforts in Congress to repeal or weaken the Johnson Amendment have so far failed amid concerns that charities could become conduits for campaign money.

Currently, the Johnson Amendment is still the law for all 501(c)(3) organizations. What has changed, however, is the IRS’s interpretation of churches, as described in the recent Texas case.

According to the proposed consent judgment, when a house of worship, “in good faith, speaks to its congregation through its customary channels of communication during religious services about electoral politics viewed through the lens of faith,” it is not considered participation or intervention in a political campaign.

In plainer terms, if a rabbi, pastor or religious leader endorses a candidate from the pulpit as part of a sermon or faith-based message to their own congregation, the IRS will treat that as an internal, private matter, “like a family discussion,” rather than as political campaigning.

Under this interpretation, such internal communications by a “church” would no longer risk violating the Johnson Amendment. The IRS agreed that these bona fide religious communications do “neither of those things” the law forbids, essentially carving out a safe harbor for sermons and similar faith-context endorsements.

It is important to note that this applies only to speech directed at a house of worship’s own members in the context of services and faith teaching. The agreement does not say that churches can start running political ads or funding campaigns.

As of now, the federal judge has not yet signed the consent order. If the consent judgment is approved, churches and other houses of worship would have a clear indication that they can endorse political candidates in the course of their religious services and communications with their members without fear of adverse repercussions.

However, this newfound liberty comes with important caveats. First, the endorsement or political talk must genuinely be internal to the religious mission, i.e., a sermon, teaching or discussion directed at the congregation in a regular worship setting. The IRS is not giving churches a blank check to operate as political campaign organizations. Activities such as fundraising for candidates, distributing campaign literature to the general public or making official “church” donations to campaigns are still off-limits.

Second, religious organizations beyond traditional congregations should be careful in assuming this protection applies to them. The court filing specifically talks about a “house of worship” speaking to “its congregation.” This covers churches, synagogues, mosques and the like during services, but it is unclear if that would apply to a religious charity or faith-based university.

While this consent order is still awaiting the judge’s approval, it signals a notable shift in how the IRS interprets the law for “church” organizations. For leaders of houses of worship, now is a good time to review your organization’s policies on political activity. If your “church” has been strictly hands-off with elections, you have the option (pending final court approval) to carefully loosen the reins, but organizations should consult legal and tax advisers to ensure their activities stay within the bounds of what is allowable.