The U.S. Department of Justice is backing Christian organizations and the Internal Revenue Service in an appeal involving a proposed agreement that would limit enforcement of the Johnson Amendment against certain religious groups.
The Trump administration filed a brief Monday with the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in National Religious Broadcasters et al. v. Scott Bessent et al., a case challenging whether the Internal Revenue Service had authority to submit an agreement in court stating it will not enforce the Johnson Amendment against NRB and other Christian groups.
The Johnson Amendment, added to federal tax law in 1954, prohibits tax-exempt organizations under Section 501(c)(3) from participating or intervening in political campaigns on behalf of or against candidates for public office.
Although the DOJ largely agreed with a federal judge’s earlier reasoning, it argued that the court overlooked an exception to the Anti-Injunction Act, which generally prevents courts from blocking federal tax collection.
This “exception applies when the Government has no likelihood of prevailing on the merits, and equity jurisdiction otherwise exists,” the DOJ brief states.
“The proposed consent judgment would enjoin the Government from enforcing the Johnson Amendment against the two church plaintiffs with respect to a narrow category of speech,” reads the brief.
“Any IRS enforcement action under the Johnson Amendment against such speech would run headlong into the church autonomy doctrine, which prevents civil courts from adjudicating ecclesiastical matters.”
National Religious Broadcasters filed the lawsuit in 2024 along with Intercessors for America and two Texas congregations, Sand Springs Church and First Baptist Church Waskom, seeking to block enforcement of the Johnson Amendment against them.
In July 2025, the IRS filed a joint motion for entry of consent judgment, stating that it agreed not to strip tax-exempt status when pastors and other religious leaders endorse political candidates to their congregations.
U.S. District Judge J. Campbell Barker dismissed the case in March, ruling that he lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under the Anti-Injunction Act and the Declaratory Judgment Act.
Barker concluded that the “DJA prohibits courts from providing declaratory relief with respect to federal taxes” and that agreement between the parties did not give the court authority to approve the requested relief.
