Evangelical broadcasters sue to strike limit on churches’ political speech
Evangelical broadcasters sue to strike limit on churches’ political speech
Law, known as Johnson Amendment, has been in effect for 70 years
A 70-year-old law that prevents churches from endorsing political candidates if they want to maintain their federal tax-exempt status has in the past decade come under fire from churches, most of them politically conservative, that claim the law stifles their right to freedom of speech. Now the law, known as the Johnson Amendment1, could get tested in court.
The National Religious Broadcasters, the leading international group of evangelical Christian communicators, has filed suit against the Internal Revenue Service seeking to have the law invalidated. The NRB filed the suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas against the IRS and its commissioner, Danny Werfel.
The NRB has been joined in the lawsuit by the Sand Springs Church of Athens, Texas, and the First Baptist Church Waskom of Waskom, Texas.
The Johnson Amendment was passed with little fanfare in 1954 and has been included with little debate in IRS implementation legislation since then. It affects not just churches, but also a wide variety of nonprofit 501(c)(3) organizations such as charities and educational and scientific foundations. Churches are treated much the same as other 501(c)(3) groups except that they are not required to publish certain financial disclosure forms.
Specifically, the amendment says that 501(c)(3) 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.”
The amendment first started coming under fire with the rise of Donald Trump, who has called for its repeal, saying that churches should be allowed to speak openly about political issues and candidates. The law appears to have been enforced little in recent years, and some Trump-allied conservative churches have protested the law with appearances by conservative political candidates.
Plaintiffs in NRB v. Werfel make these claims, among others:
Churches have engaged in self-censorship to avoid having the law enforced against them, resulting in the chilling of speech permitted by the First Amendment.
While the IRS has threatened to enforce the Johnson Amendment against churches, newspapers operated as 501(c)(3) organizations have been free to endorse candidates.
Although conservative churches have been criticized for allowing candidates to speak at their services, Democrats, including Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden, have spoken at churches without repercussion.
IRS actions have violated constitutional rights such as thee rights to free speech and equal protection, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
The lawsuit makes the argument that plaintiffs have a religious duty to engage in politics:
Plaintiffs have a bona fide religious conviction that they must teach and preach about all areas of life. No area of life is exempt from the reach of Scripture. And teaching is not limited to generalized principles. Proper teaching includes a precise application of scriptural principles to every area of life. ...
This includes the spiritual duty to teach about issues of life that may arise in the public arena. Issues such as religious freedom, the right to life, racism, and the duties of parents to their children have obvious moral and spiritual implications, and each of these topics is also a current political topic that is treated in different manners by different political candidates.
The lead attorney for the plaintiffs in Michael Farris, one of the nation’s leading lawyers in religious-freedom cases.
Among the critics of the lawsuit is Rob Boston, senior adviser for Americans United for Separation of Church and State. He called for “swift rejection” of the lawsuit:
The law in question, known as the Johnson Amendment, protects the integrity of our elections by ensuring that tax-exempt organizations stay focused on their missions, which is usually charitable, spiritual or public policy work, not partisan politics. If the churches in Texas and the NRB, which has espoused Christian Nationalist views, want to engage in partisan politics, there are appropriate vehicles for that. Allowing tax-exempt entities to jump into partisan electioneering, and even funnel money to candidates, would create a huge loophole in our nation’s campaign finance laws.
The legal action is in its earliest stages, and there has been no indication of how soon the case could come to trial.
It was named after then-Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson, an originator of the amendment.