Pulpits, politics and the limits of free speech: a US court ruling keeps a 70-year barrier in place while Washington prepares new guidance

(ZENIT News / Washington, 04.08.2026).- A legal battle that had the potential to redraw the boundaries between religion and politics in the United States has ended, for now, not with a constitutional breakthrough but with a procedural halt. A federal judge in Texas has dismissed a high-profile challenge to the Johnson Amendment, leaving intact one of the most consequential restrictions on how churches engage in electoral politics.

The case, National Religious Broadcasters v. Bessent, brought together the National Religious Broadcasters, two Texas churches, and Intercessors for America. Their objective was clear: to overturn or significantly weaken a provision that, since 1954, has prohibited tax-exempt nonprofit organizations under section 501(c)(3) from endorsing or opposing political candidates.

At stake was not only a legal technicality but a longstanding equilibrium in American public life. The plaintiffs argued that the restriction infringes upon freedoms protected by the First Amendment—both freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion—while also raising concerns under the Fifth Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Their position reflects a broader movement, particularly among some religious groups, to reclaim what they view as a constrained moral voice in the political arena.

Yet the ruling issued on March 31 by U.S. District Judge J. Campbell Barker did not engage directly with those constitutional arguments. Instead, it rested on jurisdictional grounds. The court determined it lacked authority to approve the proposed consent judgment negotiated between the plaintiffs and federal agencies, or to grant the relief sought. Central to this reasoning were two key statutes: the Anti-Injunction Act and the Declaratory Judgment Act, both of which sharply limit the ability of federal courts to interfere with tax assessment and collection.

In practical terms, the decision means that the Johnson Amendment remains fully in force. However, the dismissal “without prejudice” leaves open alternative legal pathways. As the judge noted, the plaintiffs could revive their challenge by first incurring a tangible penalty—such as losing tax-exempt status or paying contested taxes—and then seeking judicial review. Critics of this route argue that it effectively forces religious organizations to risk legal and financial consequences before they can defend what they consider constitutional rights.

The case had taken an unexpected turn months earlier. During the final phase of the previous administration, the United States Department of Justice sought to dismiss the lawsuit. But after Donald J. Trump returned to office in January 2025, the federal government reversed course. Both the Justice Department and the Internal Revenue Service aligned themselves with the plaintiffs, advocating for a narrower interpretation of the law when applied to religious speech.

That shift culminated in a proposed settlement in July 2025, which would have allowed clergy to address electoral matters from the pulpit, provided such interventions were framed within religious teaching and moral reflection. The agreement was presented as a significant step toward expanding religious liberty without dismantling the tax code’s underlying structure. However, without judicial approval, it never acquired legal force.

The reaction from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops offered a contrasting perspective. While not entering the legal dispute directly, the bishops reiterated a long-established pastoral stance: the Catholic Church does not endorse or oppose political candidates. As their spokesperson Chieko Noguchi emphasized at the time, the Church’s role is to form consciences in light of the Gospel rather than to align institutionally with electoral options. This distinction reflects a theological approach that seeks influence through moral teaching rather than partisan identification.

Despite the courtroom setback, the policy landscape may still evolve. In the wake of the ruling, the United States Department of the Treasury and the IRS announced plans to issue new guidelines clarifying how the Johnson Amendment applies to religious organizations. According to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, the forthcoming guidance aims to provide “clear and enforceable rules,” particularly regarding what kinds of political communication may be permissible within the context of religious services.

This administrative route could prove decisive. While it would not repeal the law, interpretative guidance has historically played a significant role in shaping how regulations are applied in practice. For churches navigating the delicate boundary between preaching moral principles and engaging in electoral discourse, such clarifications may offer greater operational certainty—even as the broader constitutional debate remains unresolved.

The tension exposed by this case is not new, but it is increasingly visible. It touches on a foundational question in American democracy: how to balance the autonomy of religious communities with the safeguards designed to prevent tax-exempt institutions from becoming vehicles of partisan campaigning.

 Thank you for reading our content. If you would like to receive ZENIT’s daily e-mail news, you can subscribe for free through this link.