The Tuesday before Thanksgiving, Americans United attorneys Alexandra Zaretsky and Jess Zalph traveled to Dallas to urge a federal district court to reject a consent decree and to argue for AUâs right to intervene in a case involving a challenge to the Johnson Amendment. I was with them that day and am able to report directly from the trenches.
As a reminder, this case, National Religious Broadcasters v. Long, involves two Texas churches, Sand Springs Church and First Baptist Church Waskom, that, along with the National Religious Broadcasters and Intercessors for America, sued the Internal Revenue Service arguing that the Johnson Amendment violates their First Amendment rights to free speech and free exercise of religion. (Their case is backed by Christian Nationalist legal groups.)
The Johnson Amendment is 70-year-old law restricting the ability of nonprofit organizations, including churches, from supporting or opposing candidates for public office. The plaintiffs contend that churches and religious nonprofits have been âchilledâ by this requirement and the threat that they would lose their tax-exempt status if they speak about political candidates âfrom the pulpit.â
Initially, the government defended against the lawsuit. But in July 2025, the plaintiffs and the IRS filed a joint motion asking the court to approve a consent decree, which would settle the conflict among the parties and end the litigation. This proposed settlement would effectively exempt houses of worship from this federal law. Within three days of the settlement being proposed, AU filed a motion to intervene to become a party to the lawsuit to defend the Johnson Amendment.
The hearing on the motion to intervene was held on Nov. 25. U.S. District Judge J. Campbell Barker was very engaged with the issues presented and asked thoughtful questions of all parties involved. He seemed to understand the gravity of what the parties were asking him to do and the impact that his ruling would have on all nonprofit organizations, including AU.
AUâs attorneys argued that the proposed decree contains sweeping, erroneous statements of law, and they challenged the partiesâ assertions that their proposed outcome was constitutionally required. Further, they argued that what the plaintiffs and IRS are asking the court to do is unusual and would go behind Congressâs back to rewrite the law. In spite of previous efforts from advocates, Congress has repeatedly declined to exempt houses of worship from the Johnson Amendment.
Much of the hearing, which lasted 90 minutes, centered around legal questions like the difference between a consent decree and a private settlement agreement and what impact either would have on the parties and the law.
In the end, Barker did not make a final decision but instead ordered all parties and AU to submit additional briefs presenting arguments on questions that were not readily answered during the hearing. Those briefs are due this Friday This means that weâll be waiting a bit longer for a decision. Weâre hopeful that weâll get a ruling by the end of the year, but we know all too well how slow litigation can be, so it could be early 2026 before we get a ruling.
On a personal note, I am extremely proud of Alexandra and Jess, who split the argument for Americans United. They both had command of the courtroom and were incredibly well-prepared for the hearing, which involved questions on complicated tax law issues.
The Johnson Amendment is an important provision in federal law that the vast majority of Americans support. It prevents our houses of worship from becoming cogs in political machines. The law deserves a vigorous defense â and thatâs just what Americans United is giving it.
Photo: Jess Zalph, Alexandra Zaretsky and local counsel Martin Woodward.
