Secular church-state watchdog can't intervene in Johnson Amendment case, judge rules

A federal judge has denied a request by a progressive church-state watchdog group to intervene in a case that centers on the constitutionality of an Internal Revenue Service rule that prohibits houses of worship from endorsing political candidates.

U.S. District Judge J. Campbell Barker of the Eastern District of Texas issued an order last month denying the motion from Americans United for Separation of Church and State to intervene after the National Religious Broadcasters, an association of Evangelical broadcasters and media organizations, and other parties sued to overturn the Johnson Amendment.

The amendment has been in effect since 1954. It makes it so churches risk losing their 501(c) (3) tax-exempt status if they endorse political candidates, engage in politicking or raise money for political campaigns. 

Americans United, a secular group that opposes any perceived government entanglement with religion, supports the Johnson Amendment and sought to join the litigation as a defendant alongside the IRS.

Barker, a Trump appointee who assumed office in 2019, noted that while the court granted Americans United's request to file an amicus brief and participate in oral arguments, it drew the line at allowing it "to intervene as a party."

If Americans United were to be added as a defendant, wrote Barker, it would get to "exercise of all procedural rights enjoyed by parties regarding discovery, dispositive motions, and trial."

"AUSCS is not a law-enforcement officer who is uniquely empowered to vindicate public wrongs without evidence of special harm," wrote Barker. "AUSCS's asserted right to have the government act in accordance with the law is too generalized to be judicially cognizable for intervention purposes."

Barker wrote that it is "unclear whether AUSCS has a 'defense' in common with the defenses asserted by the government" and that "intervention [would] deprive the original parties of control over their own lawsuit about a transaction that does not involve AUSCS."

"Any final judgment that the court may enter would not bind AUSCS, legally or practically, in whatever litigation it may wish to pursue in the future," he added.

"Nor would any reasoning animating a final judgment here bind AUSCS, as district-court opinions have no precedential force even within their own district."

Supporters of the Johnson Amendment believe that the rule helps prevent unlawful entanglement of church and state, while opponents claim that it violates the freedoms of speech and religion for houses of worship.

In 2024, the NRB, along with Intercessors for America, Sand Springs Church and First Baptist Church Waskom in Texas filed a complaint to have the amendment struck down, arguing that it silences only one class of nonprofits and discriminates against churches. 

Amid the litigation, the IRS announced in July 2025 that the federal government would not enforce the amendment against pastors and other religious leaders who endorse political candidates to their congregation, noting that the measure had rarely been enforced to begin with. The announcement was made through a joint motion in the case asking the court to exempt houses of worship from the Johnson Amendment.

"When a house of worship in good faith speaks to its congregation, through its customary channels of communication on matters of faith in connection with religious services, concerning electoral politics viewed through the lens of religious faith, it neither 'participate[s]' nor 'intervene[s]' in a 'political campaign,' within the ordinary meaning of those words," the motion states. 

Last November, oral arguments were heard in the NRB lawsuit, centered on whether a consent decree that would permanently block the IRS from enforcing the Johnson Amendment should be adopted.