Last updated: 10/12/26
Note: This page provides a general overview of the restrictions under the Federal Tax Code (26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3)) on supporting campaign or political speech by non-profits. We attempt to update this page with current developments on this topic, but the information presented should not be construed as legal advice specific to any client situation. For consultation, please contact our team at info@indlawcenter.org.
Overview
In 1954, Senator Lyndon Johnson proposed an amendment to Section 501(c)(3) of the tax code that would forbid non-profit corporations from engaging in political activity. The specific language of the amendment limits tax-exempt status to entities where:
“no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in subsection (h)), and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.”
This amendment has greatly affected the freedom of churches and non-profits to engage in political speech or activity as part of their non-profit activities. A key question never resolved is whether churches carrying on congregational activities like preaching and organizing fall under the prohibition of the tax code.
Case Update: National Religious Broadcasters Suit Against IRS Clarifies Enforcement Against Churches
Recently, the IRS signed a joint filing in the context of a lawsuit regarding the enforcement of the Johnson Amendment in which it stated that the Johnson Amendment would not be enforced against churches when pastors were simply communicating with congregants.
Analysis
The lawsuit involved the National Religious Broadcasters seeking declaratory relief from the court invalidating the Johnson Amendment and preventing future enforcement against religious non-profits. The plaintiffs cited numerous instances of discriminatory treatment of religious organizations under the law to show how their First Amendment rights to Free Exercise and Free Speech were harmed.
In 2025, IRS Commissioner Billy Long joined NRB’s motion for entry of consent judgment (essentially settling the case through a court judgment), which clarified enforcement of the Johnson Amendment. The motion notes that while the Amendment “may cause certain otherwise tax-exempt organizations to lose their 501(c)(3) status,” the application to churches was nuanced:
When a house of worship in good faith speaks to its congregation, through its customary channels of communication on matters of faith in connection with religious services, concerning electoral politics viewed through the lens of religious faith, it neither “participate[s]” nor “intervene[s]” in a “political campaign,” within the ordinary meaning of those words. To “participate” in a political campaign is “to take part” in the political campaign, and to “intervene” in a political campaign is “to interfere with the outcome or course” of the political campaign. . . . Bona fide communications internal to a house of worship, between the house of worship and its congregation, in connection with religious services, do neither of those things, any more than does a family discussion concerning candidates. Thus, communications from a house of worship to its congregation in connection with religious services through its usual channels of communication on matters of faith do not run afoul of the Johnson Amendment as properly interpreted.
This statement, while not binding on the IRS as a consent judgment, nevertheless clarifies critical questions regarding enforcement of this controversial provision. The motion further notes that the interpretation accords with IRS practice of enforcement, and defends the interpretation on prudential grounds:
For many houses of worship, the exercise of their religious beliefs includes teaching or instructing their congregations regarding all aspects of life, including guidance concerning the impact of faith on the choices inherent in electoral politics. Interpreting the Johnson Amendment to reach such communications would create serious tension with the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause: That broad interpretation would treat religions that do not speak directly to matters of electoral politics more favorably than religions that do so—favoring some religions over others based on their speech to their own congregations in connection with religious services through customary channels of worship and religious communication.
It is important to note that neither this statement nor the lawsuit giving rise to it definitively determines enforcement of the Johnson Amendment or its constitutionality. Rather than enforce the consent judgment, the district judge dismissed the lawsuit (assuming there was no remaining controversy), and the parties have appealed the case to the Fifth Circuit.
Takeaway
While this statement is not reflective of any binding judgment in a case of record on the Johnson Amendment, it gives churches and non-profits clearer expectations on enforcement in the near future. Until the IRS formally changes its position voluntarily or under court order, the above statements indicate that it will not enforce the Johnson Amendment against churches in scenarios where pastors are speaking to their congregations about political matters.
