The July 7, 2025, joint motion for a consent judgment in National Religious Broadcasters v. Long offers a carefully constructed interpretation of the Johnson Amendment as it applies to certain forms of religious speech. While it provides limited relief for churches seeking to address political topics within worship settings, it also reinforces the boundaries of what remains prohibited under federal tax law. The scope of this judgment is narrow, and understanding what it doesn’t do is just as important as understanding what it does.
Link to document:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txed.232590/gov.uscourts.txed.232590.35.0.pdf
What the Judgment Allows: Protected Internal Religious Speech
The judgment interprets the Johnson Amendment in a way that excludes from enforcement certain internal religious communications. Specifically, it states that:
“[C]ommunications from a house of worship to its congregation in connection with religious services through its usual channels of communication on matters of faith do not run afoul of the Johnson Amendment as properly interpreted.” (Joint Motion, p. 3)
This means that sermons, prayers, or teachings that reflect on political issues or even candidates through the lens of religious doctrine—and which occur during regular religious services—are not considered “participation in” or “intervention in” a political campaign.
Importantly, this protection is limited to bona fide religious speech made:
During religious services
Using customary religious communication channels (e.g., sermons, liturgies, teaching sessions)
From church leaders to their congregation
On matters of faith, even if those matters touch on politics
What the Judgment Does Not Permit: Explicit Endorsement or Campaign Activity
Despite this narrow safe harbor, churches and religious organizations remain barred from:
Formally endorsing or opposing specific candidates for public office
Using church publications (e.g., bulletins, newsletters, websites) to advocate for or against a candidate
Donating to political campaigns or organizing campaign-related events
Inviting only one candidate in a contested race to speak during services or events
Using church funds or resources to promote a candidate or political party
Distributing campaign literature on behalf of any political figure or party
None of these activities are protected by the judgment, and they remain firmly within the reach of IRS enforcement under § 501(c)(3). The court’s interpretation specifically hinges on avoiding campaign activity. The judgment states:
“To ‘participate’ in a political campaign is ‘to take part’ in the political campaign, and to ‘intervene’ in a political campaign is ‘to interfere with the outcome or course’ of the political campaign.” (p. 2–3)
Thus, any effort to influence the outcome of an election directly, including explicit support or opposition to a candidate, still violates the Johnson Amendment.
Application Limited to Specific Plaintiffs
One of the most important limitations of the consent judgment is its narrow applicability. It does not apply to all religious organizations or churches nationwide. Instead, it binds the IRS only in relation to:
The named plaintiffs: National Religious Broadcasters, Intercessors for America, Sand Springs Church, and First Baptist Church of Waskom
The IRS and its officials, in their dealings with these specific organizations
It does not create legal precedent for other religious groups or provide a general exemption for churches across the country. The court’s ruling, if entered, would be a consent decree, not a broadly binding legal opinion or statutory change, although this is somewhat of a technicality since IRS is not likely to be inconsistent with this.
No Blanket Immunity for Political Engagement
Even within worship services, churches must exercise discretion. For example:
If a pastor names a candidate and urges congregants to vote for or against them, this could still be construed as “intervening” in a campaign, even if the message is framed in religious language.
If religious services are used as a platform to host campaign events or distribute partisan materials, that would exceed the protections described in the judgment.
Religious commentary that uses worship time to attack or support a political candidate by name or in clear reference may still invite scrutiny, especially if done repeatedly or publicly broadcast.
The judgment clarifies that religious teaching that incidentally discusses political matters through the lens of faith is protected. It does not allow using religious services as campaign rallies in disguise.
No Policy Change at the Federal Level
This ruling does not change federal law or IRS policy for all churches. It merely affirms what has already been IRS practice in many cases: refraining from enforcement where religious speech occurs in the context of worship and does not clearly seek to influence electoral outcomes.
In fact, the document itself states:
“The IRS generally has not enforced the Johnson Amendment against houses of worship for speech concerning electoral politics in the context of worship services.” (p. 3)
This suggests continuity, not change, in IRS enforcement policy—though it does give legal weight to the agency’s restraint in this particular context.
The Need for Church Policies Remains
Despite the relief granted in this case, religious denominations and individual churches should continue to adopt clear internal policies that limit political activity. This is not only to remain within legal boundaries, but also to maintain public trust. Polling data consistently show that most Americans—religious and non-religious alike—are uncomfortable with churches engaging in overt political endorsement.
Policies should clarify:
What forms of political discussion are appropriate in worship settings
Prohibitions on staff or clergy using church resources for partisan activity
Guidelines for inviting political speakers
Boundaries around social media use by official church accounts
These internal measures help ensure compliance with federal law and reinforce a congregation’s spiritual mission over partisan goals.
Conclusion: A Narrow Safe Harbor, Not a Broad Exemption
The July 2025 consent judgment carves out a limited safe space for faith-driven speech during religious services. It affirms that not all speech touching on politics constitutes prohibited campaign activity. However, it stops far short of granting churches a free hand in political endorsement. Explicit advocacy, campaign involvement, and candidate support remain prohibited under § 501(c)(3).
The ruling applies only to a handful of plaintiffs, and its legal force ends there. For everyone else, the Johnson Amendment still stands, and the public’s skepticism of partisan preaching is a reminder that spiritual authority carries responsibilities beyond legal compliance. Churches should continue to preach with moral clarity—but avoid political entanglement.