A federal judge in Tyler, Texas, threw out a proposed agreement between the IRS and religious organizations that would have shielded churches from losing their tax-exempt status over political endorsements, a ruling that keeps a 72-year-old restriction on religious speech firmly in place and sets the stage for a Fifth Circuit appeal.
U.S. District Judge J. Campbell Barker, a Trump appointee, ruled Tuesday that he lacked jurisdiction to approve the settlement. The pact, reached in July between the IRS, two Texas churches, and the National Religious Broadcasters, would have declared traditional religious communications exempt from the Johnson Amendment, the 1954 tax code provision that bars nonprofits, including houses of worship, from endorsing political candidates.
Barker's reasoning centered on the Tax Anti-Injunction Act. Opponents of the deal argued that statute blocked the court from approving any agreement bearing on tax collection. The judge agreed, writing that the requested declaration "would thus directly bear on the amount of tax that could be collected." With that single jurisdictional finding, the settlement collapsed.
The Johnson Amendment dates to 1954, when then-Sen. Lyndon Johnson inserted the provision into the tax code. It prohibits religious and secular nonprofits alike from endorsing or opposing political candidates on pain of losing their favorable tax treatment. For decades, conservative and religious-liberty advocates have called the rule an unconstitutional muzzle on pastors and congregations.
The National Religious Broadcasters filed suit ahead of the 2024 presidential election, challenging the amendment head-on. Under President Joe Biden, the Department of Justice defended the provision's constitutionality. The DOJ reversed course under President Trump, and the IRS entered the July settlement that would have effectively neutralized the restriction for churches engaged in what the agreement termed traditional religious communications.
President Trump himself has called for the tax code provision to be repealed, a position consistent with his long-standing courtship of evangelical and faith-based voters. The administration's willingness to settle the case signaled that the executive branch, at least, considered the Johnson Amendment a relic worth discarding.
But the judiciary had other ideas. And not from a hostile bench, from a judge Trump himself put on the court.
Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, did not mince words. In a statement posted to Facebook, Perkins framed the ruling as a missed chance at a historic moment:
"He rejected a consent decree between the National Religious Broadcasters (NRB) and the Justice Department addressing the so-called Johnson Amendment, which empowers the IRS to restrict the free speech rights of churches and religious ministries."
Perkins went further, calling the decision a failure of nerve at a symbolic juncture:
"[The judge] regrettably sidestepped an opportunity, on the 250th anniversary of our nation, to correct a wrong that strikes at the very heart of American freedom."
Strong language, and notable because the criticism is aimed not at a progressive judge or a Biden holdover but at a Trump appointee who concluded the law simply did not give him the authority to bless the deal. The frustration from the religious right is not with the merits. It is with the procedural roadblock.
The administration has faced similar friction with its own judicial appointees on other fronts, as Trump's pointed reaction to a recent Supreme Court tariff ruling made clear. Judges confirmed by Republican presidents do not always deliver the outcomes the White House wants, a feature of judicial independence that cuts both ways.
Michael Farris, general counsel for the National Religious Broadcasters, said the organization plans to appeal Barker's dismissal. Farris argued the judge's ruling ignores an Anti-Injunction Act exemption that would allow the case to proceed. The specifics of that exemption were not detailed in public statements, but the legal theory will now be tested at the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.
Perkins confirmed the Family Research Council would back the appeal effort fully:
"Fortunately, NRB plans to appeal this decision to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and they will have the full support of Family Research Council in that effort."
The Fifth Circuit has earned a reputation as one of the more conservative appellate courts in the country. If any federal appeals court is inclined to take a hard look at the Tax Anti-Injunction Act's reach in this context, it may be this one. But jurisdictional bars are stubborn things. Courts are reluctant to wave them aside, regardless of the underlying policy question.
The broader legal landscape matters here too. The Trump administration has been willing to press aggressive legal theories across multiple policy areas, from invoking an 1884 ruling in a Supreme Court fight over birthright citizenship to restructuring executive agencies. The Johnson Amendment challenge fits that pattern, an attempt to use existing legal mechanisms to roll back decades-old restrictions the administration views as constitutionally suspect.
On the other side, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the group that intervened to oppose the settlement, treated Barker's ruling as vindication. The organization had argued the Tax Anti-Injunction Act flatly prohibited the court from signing off on the deal.
Rachel Laser, president of Americans United, praised the dismissal, saying "the Johnson Amendment will remain a strong bulwark to stop religious extremists from exploiting houses of worship." That language, "religious extremists", tells you something about how the other side frames pastors who want to speak freely about candidates from the pulpit. In their telling, a sermon that mentions an election is not speech. It is exploitation.
The IRS, for its part, did not respond to a request for comment from Reuters, which first reported Barker's jurisdictional ruling. The agency's silence leaves open the question of whether it will pursue alternative paths to the same policy outcome, rulemaking, for instance, or a fresh legal strategy that avoids the Anti-Injunction Act problem.
What Barker's ruling does not do is as important as what it does. The judge did not rule that the Johnson Amendment is constitutional. He did not rule that churches must remain silent on candidates. He did not reach the merits at all. He said the courthouse door was closed on this particular path.
That distinction matters. The underlying question, whether the federal government can condition a church's tax status on its willingness to stay out of elections, remains unresolved. The First Amendment arguments have not been heard. The consent decree was never weighed on its substance. The case died on a threshold technicality.
For the millions of churchgoing Americans who believe their pastors should be free to speak on matters of public concern, including elections, the fight now moves to the Fifth Circuit. And if that court agrees with Barker on jurisdiction, the only remaining remedy may be the one Trump has already called for: congressional repeal of the Johnson Amendment itself.
A 1954 provision designed to protect one senator's political hide should not still be silencing American pulpits seven decades later. If the courts won't fix it, Congress has no excuse.
