{"id":26196,"date":"2026-04-11T13:42:51","date_gmt":"2026-04-11T13:42:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/biblelon.com\/?p=26196"},"modified":"2026-04-11T13:42:51","modified_gmt":"2026-04-11T13:42:51","slug":"the-johnson-amendment-a-critical-setback","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/biblelon.com\/?p=26196","title":{"rendered":"The Johnson Amendment: A Critical Setback"},"content":{"rendered":"

\n Reading Time:<\/span> 2<\/span> minutes<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

On March 31, United States District Judge J. Campbell Barker dismissed\u2014without prejudice\u2014the legal challenge brought by Intercessors for America and three other plaintiffs against the Internal Revenue Service regarding the constitutionality of the Johnson Amendment.\n<\/p>\n

Have you taken your place on the wall?<\/h4>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

The Johnson Amendment prohibits churches and other 501(c)(3) organizations from supporting or opposing political candidates, under threat of losing their tax-exempt status. This case was not about wrongdoing\u2014it was about freedom. None of the plaintiffs violated the law or faced IRS penalties. Instead, the concern is more subtle but just as serious: self-censorship driven by fear that speaking freely could trigger consequences.\n<\/p>\n

The lawsuit was filed by the National Religious Broadcasters, Intercessors for America<\/strong><\/em>, Sand Springs Church (Athens, Texas), and First Baptist Church of Waskom (Waskom, Texas). Together, they challenged whether the Johnson Amendment infringes on First Amendment rights\u2014particularly freedom of speech and religious expression.\n<\/p>\n

Prior to the dismissal, a settlement had been reached with the IRS, pending court approval. That agreement clarified a significant point: when churches speak about candidates during a worship service, the Johnson Amendment does not apply. The IRS itself acknowledged that enforcing it in that setting would violate the First Amendment\u2019s protections regarding the establishment of religion.\n<\/p>\n

President Donald J. Trump has publicly pointed to this development as a win for religious liberty.\n<\/p>\n

However, the court\u2019s dismissal hinged on the Anti-Injunction Act. The judge concluded that he could not rule on potential future harm\u2014meaning that, unless the plaintiffs actually violate the Johnson Amendment and face penalties, the court would not intervene.\n<\/p>\n

In practical terms, this creates a troubling standard: to challenge the law, one must first risk breaking it.\n<\/p>\n

No American should be forced into legal jeopardy simply to defend their constitutional rights.\n<\/p>\n

We believe longstanding Supreme Court precedent supports a different conclusion\u2014one that affirms two key principles:\n<\/p>\n