DOJ sides with Christian groups, IRS in Johnson Amendment appeal
The U.S. Department of Justice has come to the defense of the National Religious Broadcasters and other nonprofits with whom the Internal Revenue Service has agreed to limit enforcement of a federal law that prohibits such organizations from endorsing political candidates.
The Trump Justice Department submitted a brief Monday to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of National Religious Broadcasters et al. v. Scott Bessent et al., which centers on whether the Internal Revenue Service had authority to submit an agreement in court stating it will not enforce the Johnson Amendment against NRB and other Christian groups.
The Johnson Amendment is a 1954 measure that bars some nonprofit entities from making political endorsements or engaging in political activity.
While the DOJ largely agreed with a federal judge's ruling against the plaintiffs, the government argued that the decision ignored an exception in the Anti-Injunction Act (AIA), a law that generally bars courts from blocking the collection of taxes.
This “exception applies when the Government has no likelihood of prevailing on the merits, and equity jurisdiction otherwise exists," the DOJ brief states.
“The proposed consent judgment would enjoin the Government from enforcing the Johnson Amendment against the two church plaintiffs with respect to a narrow category of speech,” reads the brief.
“Any IRS enforcement action under the Johnson Amendment against such speech would run headlong into the church autonomy doctrine, which prevents civil courts from adjudicating ecclesiastical matters.”
In 2024, NRB filed a complaint against the federal government to halt enforcement of the Johnson Amendment. Other plaintiffs include Intercessors for America, a Virginia-based Christian nonprofit, and two Texas congregations: Sand Springs Church and First Baptist Church Waskom.
In July 2025, the IRS filed a joint motion for entry of consent judgment, stating that it agreed not to strip tax-exempt status when pastors and other religious leaders endorse political candidates to their congregations.
In March, U.S. District Judge J. Campbell Barker of the Eastern District of Texas issued an opinion and order against the plaintiffs, concluding he could not approve the proposed relief because of the AIA and the Declaratory Judgment Act (DJA).
Barker, a Trump appointee, ruled that “DJA prohibits courts from providing declaratory relief with respect to federal taxes” and that both parties’ consent was not enough to justify it.
“Subject-matter jurisdiction is determined by the nature of the claims and parties in the operative complaint, not by consent during litigation,” Barker wrote. “The DJA and AIA apply here because plaintiffs’ claims are ‘in respect to’ taxes and seek to restrain the threat of tax collection or assessment based on certain activity.”
“The government cites no authority for its position that its own consent to an injunction regarding a condition for tax benefits creates jurisdiction that the AIA or DJA otherwise denies,” he added.
