The Johnson Amendment, enacted in 1954 as part of the Internal Revenue Code, prohibits 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations, including churches, religious orders, and other nonprofits, from endorsing or opposing political candidates. The key statutory language states that such organizations may “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.” 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3). Its purpose is to prevent tax-exempt entities from engaging in partisan political campaign activity, thereby preserving their tax-exempt status.
Historically, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has interpreted and enforced this provision strictly. Any endorsement or opposition of political candidates by these organizations has been viewed as prohibited “campaign intervention,” risking penalties including loss of tax-exempt status. While religious institutions are permitted to express moral or doctrinal views on issues, the IRS draws a clear line against linking such views explicitly to support for or opposition to candidates. This interpretation has required religious organizations to carefully balance their religious expression with federal restrictions on political advocacy.
On July 7, 2025, the IRS entered into a court-approved settlement in a case brought by the National Religious Broadcasters and two Texas churches. As part of that agreement, the IRS acknowledged that when a house of worship communicates internally, through sermons, liturgy, and other traditional religious channels, about political matters framed by faith, such communication does not automatically constitute prohibited campaign intervention under the Johnson Amendment. This represents a notable departure from the IRS’s prior strict enforcement stance.
Despite this shift in enforcement posture, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) announced on July 8 that the Catholic Church will continue its longstanding policy of non-endorsement. USCCB spokesperson Chieko Noguchi emphasized that the IRS settlement does not alter how the Church engages in public life, stating, “The IRS was addressing a specific case, and it doesn’t change how the Catholic Church engages in public debate.” She explained that the Church’s mission is to help Catholics form their consciences in light of the Gospel so they might discern which candidates and policies advance the common good. “The Catholic Church maintains its stance of not endorsing or opposing political candidates,” she added. According to Noguchi, if an individual member of the clergy were to endorse a candidate, it would be a matter for the local bishop to address.
An internal memorandum from the USCCB’s Office of General Counsel advised dioceses and Catholic conferences to maintain existing restrictions on political activity pending further authoritative guidance. This recommendation aligns with canon law, which generally prohibits clerics from active political engagement unless expressly authorized for the defense of Church rights or the promotion of the common good. The USCCB’s response is consistent with that ecclesial framework and reflects broader institutional concerns about reputational and legal risks associated with political entanglement.
The Church’s decision has drawn praise from commentators and Catholic leaders who view it as a prudent reaffirmation of the Church’s pastoral identity. Christopher Check, president of Catholic Answers, noted that the Church is not simply one of many political or nonprofit voices in the public square, but rather the divine institution through which public activity should be understood. By declining to take advantage of the IRS’s changed stance, the bishops reinforced a core institutional principle: that the Church’s role is to provide moral and doctrinal guidance, not to participate in electoral politics.
It is important to emphasize that the IRS settlement does not have the status of binding precedent or formal regulatory guidance. It resolves a specific dispute and does not extend broadly to other religious institutions. Without additional rulemaking or legislation, any decision by another house of worship to test the new enforcement boundaries would carry uncertainty and risk.
In this context, the USCCB’s decision to preserve neutrality may help safeguard both the Church’s legal position and its public credibility at a time of heightened polarization.
Airdo Werwas continues to monitor this matter closely. If you have questions about the implications of this development or related issues affecting religious institutions, please contact the attorney with whom you regularly work or reach out to Michael A. Airdo at mairdo@airdowerwas.com. We gratefully acknowledge the contributions of Associate Attorney Yuri A. Klinkenbergh (yklinkenbergh@airdowerwas.com) to this analysis.