Could Churches Legally Endorse Candidates Before the Midterms?

Should you expect to get a lecture on who to vote for the next time that you attend church? A renewed fight over the right of religious organizations to endorse political candidates could shape how the midterms unfold. Here is a look at this legal battle and what it could mean for what churches are allowed to say and do ahead of the midterms.

History of the Johnson Amendment

There is no doubt that the upcoming November midterms could change the political trajectory of the country. The big question now is if churches have the right to insert themselves into the dialogue.

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has historically banned houses of worship with tax-exempt status from becoming directly involved in politics. The Johnson Amendment formally became a part of the Internal Revenue Code in 1954, effectively banning all tax-exempt 501c(3) organizations from directly or indirectly participating in politics. This prohibition encompasses most churches and charities.

The National Religious Broadcasters organization takes issue with the Johnson Amendment, saying that it violates their First Amendment rights to both freedom of speech and freedom of religion. The association of evangelical Christian communicators took action in September of 2024 by suing the IRS.

In 2025, the two parties reached a settlement, opening the door for churches and other religious groups to endorse candidates in some circumstances. The court documents note that these church endorsements should not be viewed as the 501c(3) groups intervening in politics. Instead, the IRS should view it as "family discussion concerning politics."

However, a judge dismissed the case in March, detailing that federal courts do not have the authority to change the tax status of a plaintiff or to make their own tax laws. It was just a few days later that the Trump administration signaled that it would issue guidance on the issue, promising to “continue to protect religious freedom as a fundamental right.”

With just a few months left until the midterms, that guidance from the White House still has not come. As a result, the legal wrangling continues, leaving a great deal of uncertainty about what level of political involvement churches can engage in heading into the pivotal elections.

Originally introduced by former President Lyndon B. Johnson when he was serving in the U.S. Senate, the Johnson Amendment has rarely been enforced. A notable exception came in 1992 when a New York church lost its tax-exempt status after publishing newspaper ads urging Christians to not support former President Bill Clinton. The court said that the ads did not fall under the church's First Amendment rights.

Arguments Made by Both Sides of the Issue

The Freedom From Religion Foundation has filed several complaints to the IRS about what they perceive as violations of the amendment over the years. Chris Line, legal counsel for the foundation, said that violations of the Johnson Amendment seem to be more prevalent in conservative churches. However, he was quick to note that the Democrats have also seen their fair share of violations.

What is clear is that the future of the amendment could reshape how politics and religion mingle. Retired United Methodist Church Bishop Julius C. Trimble said that allowing political money to infiltrate churches could limit the unifying role that religion plays in society. Line also expressed similar concerns, noting that churches could "just turn into super PACs" if they are allowed to openly endorse candidates while keeping their tax-exempt status.

Opponents of the Johnson Amendment note that in addition to the violation of constitutional rights, the legislation also has financial implications for religious groups. Justin Arnot, general counsel for the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, continues to defend Graham's relationship with the Trump administration. Arnot believes that more religious leaders should lean on their influence at the church and state level to promote morality.

Arnot staunchly defends the work of the association, saying that most of it is not politically motivated. He has also accused the Freedom From Religion Foundation of engaging in intimidation. Arnot says that his organization makes "decisions based on our biblical convictions and our mission and informed by the law to make sure we’re compliant, and we’re confident that we are."

With so much uncertainty still surrounding how the Trump administration is going to come down on this issue, churches are making their own guidance about how they are going to approach the touchy issue. For instance, the United Church of Christ has created a toolkit for its leaders with the goal of supporting "nonpartisan faithful engagement" for the midterms.

Other denominations are also providing resources to local churches as the midterm approaches. Some of the less controversial actions include churches holding voter registration drives without attaching a specific candidate to the event. For example, a church in New York hosted a “Getting Into Good Trouble” voter registration drive, honoring the late U.S. Rep. John Lewis by promoting something that he was instrumental in defending.

Curious for more stories that keep you informed and entertained? From the latest headlines to everyday insights, YourLifeBuzz has more to explore. Dive into what's next.