A federal judge has rejected an effort by a progressive church-state watchdog organization to join a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of an Internal Revenue Service rule that restricts political activity by churches.
Last month, J. Campbell Barker, a judge on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, issued an order denying a motion from Americans United for Separation of Church and State to intervene in litigation seeking to overturn the Johnson Amendment.
The underlying lawsuit was brought by the National Religious Broadcasters and other plaintiffs, who are challenging the amendment’s constitutionality. The Johnson Amendment, enacted in 1954, conditions 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status on churches and other nonprofits refraining from endorsing political candidates, engaging in campaign activity, or fundraising for political campaigns.
Americans United, which advocates for strict separation between government and religion, supports the amendment and sought to participate in the case as a defendant alongside the Internal Revenue Service.
In his ruling, Barker—who was appointed by Donald Trump and took office in 2019—acknowledged that the court had allowed the group to submit an amicus brief and take part in oral arguments, but declined to grant it full party status. The court, he wrote, would not permit the group “to intervene as a party.”
Allowing Americans United to intervene, Barker explained, would give it the ability to “exercise of all procedural rights enjoyed by parties regarding discovery, dispositive motions, and trial.”
“AUSCS is not a law-enforcement officer who is uniquely empowered to vindicate public wrongs without evidence of special harm,” Barker wrote. “AUSCS's asserted right to have the government act in accordance with the law is too generalized to be judicially cognizable for intervention purposes.”
The judge further questioned whether the organization shared a common legal defense with the federal government, stating that “it is unclear whether AUSCS has a 'defense' in common with the defenses asserted by the government” and that allowing intervention would “deprive the original parties of control over their own lawsuit about a transaction that does not involve AUSCS.”
Barker also noted that any outcome in the case would not legally constrain the watchdog group in future litigation. “Any final judgment that the court may enter would not bind AUSCS, legally or practically, in whatever litigation it may wish to pursue in the future,” he wrote.
“Nor would any reasoning animating a final judgment here bind AUSCS, as district-court opinions have no precedential force even within their own district.”
The challenge to the Johnson Amendment was filed in 2024 by the National Religious Broadcasters along with Intercessors for America, Sand Springs Church, and First Baptist Church Waskom. The plaintiffs argue that the amendment unfairly targets churches and restricts their speech in violation of the Constitution.
As the case has moved forward, enforcement policy has also shifted. The IRS announced in July 2025 that the federal government would not enforce the amendment against pastors and other religious leaders who endorse political candidates to their congregation.
