DOJ sides with churches in political speech case

The Justice Department told an appeals court it largely agrees with the religious groups suing it over how far churches can wade into politics and still keep their tax-exempt status.

The DOJ said a lower court judge was wrong to throw out an agreement the government reached with these religious groups in July 2025 that would have significantly weakened the Johnson Amendment, a 1950s law that conditions religious organizations' tax-exempt statuses on steering clear of political campaigns. The DOJ filed its brief in the case in the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on Sept. 21.

In the 2025 agreement, the DOJ agreed to not enforce the Johnson Amendment when a church communicates about politics "to its congregation, in connection with religious services through its customary channels of communication on matters of faith," it said in the brief.

This agreement was invalid because it would have violated the Anti-Injunction Act, which prohibits legal rulings that interfere with tax collection, according to a 2025 ruling from Judge J. Campbell Barker of the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

But the DOJ said Barker missed that an exception to the AIA applies when "the Government has no likelihood of prevailing on the merits, and equity jurisdiction otherwise exists."

The agreement only stops the IRS from doing something it already can't do because enforcing Johnson Amendment in that way would violate the church autonomy doctrine, which "prevents civil courts from adjudicating ecclesiastical matters," the DOJ said.

This stance puts the government and the plaintiffs on the same side of this issue in this case. Two Republican members of Congress have also filed an amicus brief in the case supporting the religious group appellants.

However, the DOJ also said it's not endorsing every aspect of the religious groups' arguments. The DOJ asked the Fifth Circuit to reverse Barker on narrow grounds and rule that the AIA doesn't apply to its agreement, whereas the appellants want the court to go further and declare that the Johnson Amendment itself is unconstitutional on First and Fifth Amendment grounds.

The appellants in this case are represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, Citizens for Self-Governance, and its own attorney.