Daijiworld Media Network - Washington

Washington, Jul 27: Daijiworld Media Network – A legal battle over whether churches in the United States can endorse political candidates without risking their tax-exempt status has intensified ahead of the country's midterm elections, leaving religious organisations uncertain about the extent of political activity they can undertake.

At the centre of the dispute is the Johnson Amendment, a provision added to the US Internal Revenue Code in 1954 that prohibits tax-exempt organisations, including churches and charities registered under Section 501(c)(3), from directly or indirectly endorsing or opposing political candidates.

The amendment has been challenged by the National Religious Broadcasters, Intercessors for America, and two Texas churches, which filed a lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in September 2024. The plaintiffs argued that the rule violates constitutional protections for freedom of speech and freedom of religion under the First Amendment.

In 2025, the parties reached a proposed settlement in which the IRS agreed that political endorsements made by churches in certain circumstances could be treated as internal discussions rather than political campaign intervention, effectively reversing decades of legal interpretation.

However, a federal judge dismissed the case in March this year, ruling that the court lacked jurisdiction to alter tax laws or create exemptions through a settlement. The plaintiffs have since appealed the decision, arguing that the dismissal overturned an agreement supported by both sides and left churches without legal clarity.

Following the dismissal, the administration of US President Donald Trump announced that it would issue fresh guidance on the Johnson Amendment for religious organisations, stating that it remained committed to protecting religious freedom. However, no formal guidance has been released so far.

Although the Johnson Amendment has existed for more than 70 years, enforcement has been rare. One notable case involved a New York church that lost its tax-exempt status after publishing newspaper advertisements urging Christians not to vote for former President Bill Clinton during the 1992 election. The courts upheld the IRS action.

Religious organisations across the political spectrum have accused the IRS of selectively enforcing the rule. Conservative groups allege that religious and conservative institutions are unfairly targeted, while secular watchdog organisations claim that violations are more common among conservative churches but also occur among Democratic-leaning religious groups.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation has filed numerous complaints over alleged violations, including against churches linked to Republican and Democratic political figures. The organisation warned that removing restrictions could effectively allow churches to function as political action committees while retaining tax-exempt status.

Religious leaders remain divided over the issue. Reverend Jamal Bryant of New Birth Missionary Baptist Church argued that faith leaders have a responsibility to address political and social issues, while Billy Graham Evangelistic Association General Counsel Justin Arnot said the current law discourages legitimate religious speech and charitable giving.

Others have expressed concern that weakening the Johnson Amendment could blur the distinction between religious institutions and political organisations. Retired United Methodist Bishop Julius C. Trimble cautioned that allowing direct political endorsements could undermine churches' role as independent moral voices.

Despite the ongoing legal uncertainty, many religious organisations are continuing non-partisan civic engagement activities ahead of the elections, including voter registration drives and voter education campaigns. Several denominations have also issued guidance encouraging participation in democratic processes while avoiding direct endorsements of political candidates.

The outcome of the legal challenge is expected to have significant implications for the relationship between religion, politics and campaign finance in the United States, particularly as the country prepares for the closely watched midterm elections.