IRS Scheme REJECTED — Church-State Bombshell Unravels…

A Texas federal judge just threw cold water on what could have been the biggest shift in church-state relations since Lyndon Johnson first drew the line seven decades ago.

When the IRS Blinked but the Judge Didn’t

The IRS proposed something extraordinary in July 2025: a consent decree that would have let churches endorse political candidates during worship services without risking their 501(c)(3) status. The agency framed pulpit endorsements as merely “private family discussions” among congregants, a legal sleight of hand that would have carved out Texas churches and the National Religious Broadcasters Association from enforcement. Judge Barker saw through it. His March 31 dismissal made clear that federal courts cannot rewrite tax law through settlement agreements, regardless of which administration supports the deal.

This wasn’t just procedural housekeeping. The ruling preserved a fundamental principle: when Congress writes tax law, only Congress can change it. The IRS attempted an end run around legislative authority, and a Trump-appointed judge stopped it cold. That’s how checks and balances work when they function properly, even when the outcome disappoints political allies.

The Johnson Amendment’s Seven-Decade Hold

Senator Lyndon Johnson inserted this provision into the tax code in 1954, barring nonprofits from endorsing or opposing political candidates. His motivation remains debated, but the effect proved lasting: churches could speak forcefully on issues while staying silent on specific candidates. The IRS rarely enforced the rule with teeth. Since 2008, “Pulpit Freedom Sunday” campaigns saw pastors deliberately violate the amendment without consequence, exposing the gap between law on paper and enforcement in practice.

President Trump criticized the Johnson Amendment since his 2016 campaign, arguing it muzzled religious voices. His administration’s support for this lawsuit represented a formal effort to dismantle restrictions his Justice Department viewed as unconstitutional. The plaintiffs—two unnamed Texas churches and the National Religious Broadcasters Association—filed suit in August 2024, claiming First Amendment violations. They gained an unusually sympathetic IRS under new leadership, resulting in the proposed settlement nine months later.

Judge Cam Barker

What Churches Actually Wanted

The lawsuit sought permission for pastors to endorse candidates during sermons, church newsletters, and other “usual channels of communication” without jeopardizing tax-exempt status. Americans United for Separation of Church and State intervened, arguing the settlement would create unequal treatment favoring religious nonprofits over secular charities bound by the same tax code. Their objection highlighted a genuine concern: why should churches receive special carve-outs unavailable to environmental groups, civil rights organizations, or educational nonprofits?

Public opinion cuts against church endorsements. A 2022 Pew Research poll found 67 percent of Americans oppose religious institutions backing political candidates. Yet evangelical leaders like Pastor Greg Ball of Destiny Church argue that biblical guidance necessarily includes voting decisions, making candidate endorsements integral to pastoral duty. This tension between religious expression and tax-subsidized neutrality drives the entire controversy.

The Asymmetry Problem Nobody Wants to Discuss

Legal experts predict that allowing church endorsements would predominantly benefit conservative candidates. Professor Taylor noted the asymmetry: right-leaning congregations would mobilize endorsement infrastructure far more aggressively than progressive houses of worship. Zaretsky warned of inherent conservative bias in religious broadcasting networks that would amplify certain candidates. These aren’t partisan complaints but observations about institutional realities. Evangelical churches maintain organizational structures and communication channels that would convert permission into political machinery overnight.

The settlement’s limitation to specific plaintiffs attempted to avoid this broader impact, but Judge Barker recognized the absurdity. Either the Johnson Amendment violates the First Amendment for all churches, or it doesn’t. Selective non-enforcement through consent decrees creates exactly the unequal application Americans United opposed. The judge’s dismissal prevented a two-tiered system where lawsuit plaintiffs gained freedoms denied to thousands of other congregations.

What Comes Next for Pulpits and Politics

Churches retain substantial freedom to address political issues without naming candidates. They can discuss abortion policy, immigration reform, religious liberty concerns, and economic justice while steering clear of explicit endorsements. Attorney Ewing emphasized that issue-based advocacy remains fully protected speech. The Johnson Amendment draws a bright line at candidate endorsements, not policy positions, leaving ample room for religious voices in public debates.

The dismissal returns everyone to the status quo, but the underlying tension persists. Conservative groups may pursue legislative repeal through Congress, appeal this decision, or file new lawsuits in friendlier venues. The Trump administration’s willingness to settle suggests executive branch appetite for change, even if this particular attempt failed. Meanwhile, the rare enforcement history means many pastors already speak more freely than the law technically permits, creating a gap between formal rules and practical reality that benefits no one seeking clarity.