Johnson Amendment Remains in Full Force After Texas Court Dismisses National Religious Broadcasters v. Bessent on Procedural Grounds
Section 501(c)(3) grants exemption only if an organization is organized and operated for exempt purposes, no earnings inure to insiders, no substantial part of its activities is lobbying, and it “does not participate in, or intervene in … any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.” That last clause, known as the “Johnson Amendment,” is a categorical ban on engaging in political campaigns. There is no “substantiality” threshold for candidate activity. Any participation or intervention can put exemption at risk.
The case at issue stems from the court-approved settlement that the IRS entered into on July 7, 2025, in the Eastern District of Texas. As part of that agreement, the IRS stated that political matters that are framed by faith, “might not necessarily be implicated” by the Johnson Amendment. In response, the USCCB advised that it still would continue with its policy of non-endorsement.
The plaintiffs in National Religious Broadcasters v. Bessent, which includes churches and religious nonprofits, alleged that the Johnson Amendment caused them to self-censor activities they would otherwise undertake for fear of losing their tax-exempt status. They challenged the statute both facially and as applied, arguing that it violates the First Amendment’s protections for freedom of speech and free exercise of religion, is impermissibly vague, violates equal protection and due process under the Fifth Amendment, and infringes on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
District Court Judge J. Campbell Barker issued a written Order and Opinion on March 31, 2026, dismissing the case. Judge Barker did not reach the merits of the case; instead, he dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. The court held that a pre-enforcement challenge to the Johnson Amendment is, in substance, a suit to restrain federal tax consequences and is, therefore, barred by the Anti-Injunction Act and the Declaratory Judgment Act.
The issue decided in this case was whether the district court has jurisdiction to hear the dispute. The Tax Anti-Injunction Act is a statute that generally bars suits that are meant to restrain tax “assessment or collection.” In this case, the government voluntarily entered into a consent decree to resolve the dispute. This consent decree, according to the District Court, sought to enjoin tax collection by preventing the loss of 501(c)(3) status.
The question, then, analyzed by the court was whether the court has jurisdiction to hear the case if the government’s consent can manufacture jurisdiction, despite the language of the Anti-Injunction Act. The court reiterated that a jurisdictional ban is not optional, and that jurisdiction is determined by looking at the complaint itself.
The court, therefore, dismissed the complaint. So, the consent decree is no longer in force and has no effect whatsoever. Religious organizations and churches should assume that there has been no change to the Internal Revenue Service’s position when it comes to the Johnson Amendment.
What the National Religious Broadcasters v. Bessent Decision Means for Religious Organizations, Churches, and Other 501(c)(3) Groups
Candidate endorsement remains prohibited. That prohbition includes not only explicit statements, but “communications that function as endorsements in context.” The statute reaches “publishing or distributing statements,” so the analysis is not limited to formal announcements.
The key line is between issues and candidates. Churches may preach and teach on moral and public issues, including controversial ones. A homily or sermon addressing immigration, abortion, education, or poverty is permissible. The risk arises when that message is tied to a specific candidate or directs how parishioners should vote.
Context and attribution matter. Statements delivered at mass or other church services, in bulletins, or through parish or diocesan communications are treated as “institutional speech.” Personal political activity by clergy or other ministers is not prohibited, but it must be clearly separate from church functions and cannot use church resources. Disclaimers help, but they do not cure conduct that otherwise looks like institutional endorsement.
Indirect activity can also create problems. Unequal treatment of candidates, selective invitations, or allowing campaign messaging through church channels can be treated as “intervention.” Neutrality in forums or educational efforts must be real and documented.
Conclusion
As this decision dismisses the consent decree on procedural grounds, future movement from the IRS can still be expected on this issue. Perhaps that action will be from an appeal or through new regulations. Regardless, this issue is an important one for religious organizations, nonprofits, and churches to follow as it develops. But for now, it is prudent to assume that nothing has changed, and that the Johnson Amendment remains in full force and effect.
If you organization has any questions about what this decision means for your organization’s tax-exempt status, be sure to contact Michael A. Airdo (mairdo@airdowerwas.com) or Jake A. Leahy (jleahy@airdowerwas.com).