Should churches endorse political candidates? New lawsuit reignites old debate

A new lawsuit from a faith-based media organization has reignited an old debate about what churches are allowed to do and say during election season.
Highlighting recent changes to the journalism industry, the lawsuit claims that nonprofit houses of worship are being treated differently by the IRS than nonprofit newspapers despite having the same 501(c)(3) status.
The newspapers are endorsing political candidates without losing their tax-exempt status, but churches are not being allowed to do the same, it claims.
“The complaint details the fact that many 501(c)(3) organizations engage in electoral activities that are open, obvious, and well-known, yet the IRS allows some, but not all, such organizations to do so without penalty,” according to a statement from the National Religious Broadcasters Association, which partnered with two Baptist churches and a prayer-focused nonprofit on the new lawsuit.
The lawsuit also raises free speech and religious freedom concerns, arguing that houses of worship have a right under the First Amendment to speak out about political issues, per Religion News Service.
“For too long, churches have been instructed to remain silent on pressing matters of conscience and conviction during election season or risk their 501(c)(3) status,” said National Religious Broadcasters President and CEO Troy A. Miller in the statement. “We believe that all nonprofits should have the constitutional right to freely express their point of view on candidates, elections, and issues on the ballot.”
The new lawsuit centers on the Johnson Amendment, which is part of the tax code.
The Johnson Amendment says that 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations, including churches, risk losing their tax-exempt status if they endorse political candidates. Its broader goal is to prevent nonprofits from taking sides in elections.
Although the IRS has only rarely used the Johnson Amendment to take action against politically minded houses of worship, the policy has been a topic of debate — and, in some cases, a source of consternation — for decades.
Former President Donald Trump spoke often about repealing the Johnson Amendment during his time in office as he worked to shore up support from evangelical Christians.
“I will get rid of and totally destroy the Johnson Amendment and allow our representatives of faith to speak freely and without fear of retribution,” Trump said at the National Prayer Breakfast in February 2017, as the Deseret News reported at the time.
Most Americans support the mission of the Johnson Amendment as it relates to religious organizations.
A 2019 survey from Pew Research Center found that 76% of U.S. adults, including 70% of Christians, 82% of Jews and 92% of atheists, say churches and other houses of worship should not come out in favor of one candidate over another.
The same survey showed that Republicans and others who lean toward the Republican Party are generally more supportive of political endorsements from churches than Democrats and others who lean toward the Democratic Party.
Thirty-one percent of Americans in the Republican/lean Republican group said churches should come out in favor of candidates, compared to 16% of the Democrat/lean Democrat group, according to Pew.
“Both groups express more opposition to political involvement by churches than support for it,” researchers noted.
In its statement, the National Religious Broadcasters Association said that the goal of the new lawsuit is not to influence the 2024 election.
“Plaintiffs are making no attempt to obtain a decision prior to the 2024 election. They are not filing a motion for a preliminary injunction or any other motion to expedite the litigation. They do not expect any hearings in the matter prior to the 2024 election,” it said.
The statement also noted that, even if it’s successful, the lawsuit wouldn’t kill the Johnson Amendment in its entirety. The hope is to clear the way for more speech about candidates, not donations to candidates, the statement said, and to bring clarity to the current tax landscape.
“The complaint details the fact that many 501(c)(3) organizations engage in electoral activities that are open, obvious, and well-known, yet the IRS allows some, but not all, such organizations to do so without penalty. At this time, the IRS has no apparent rational basis for determining which 501(c)(3) organizations will be permitted to speak freely,” the statement said.