In
2017,
a
newly
elected
President
Trump
promised
faith
leaders
to
remove
a
once-critical
barrier
in
the
separation
of
church
and
state.
“I
will
get
rid
of
and
totally
destroy
the
Johnson
Amendment
and
allow
our
representatives
of
faith
to
speak
freely
and
without
fear
of
retribution,”
he
vowed
at
the
National
Prayer
Breakfast
just
two
weeks
after
his
inauguration.
As
with
so
many
of
his
promises,
that
one
went
unkept.
The
Johnson
Amendment,
which
bars
churches
from
endorsing
political
candidates,
is
a
federal
law,
so
it
can’t
be
“destroyed”
by
the
President.
And
when
congressional
Republicans
tried
to
sneak
repeal
of
the
Johnson
Amendment
into
a
budget
reconciliation
bill,
the
Senate
parliamentarian
nixed
it.
But
no
matter!
Because
the
Supreme
Court’s
conservatives
have
been
working
overtime
to
grant
wishes
to
Christian
conservatives.
And
with
the
help
of
a
Trump-appointed
district
court
judge
in
Texas,
they
might
be
able
to
leverage
a
largely-defunct
lawsuit
brought
by
two
tiny
churches
to
pull
the
Trump
DOJ
over
the
finish
line.
Hey
hey
LBJ
Named
for
then-Senator
Lyndon
Johnson,
the
1954
amendment
to
the
Internal
Revenue
Code
grants
charitable
organizations
a
special
kind
of
tax-exempt
status,
wherein
the
organization’s
revenues
are
untaxed,
and
its
donors
can
deduct
their
contributions.
Churches
get
to
keep
this
“double
dip”
as
long
as
“no
substantial
part
of
the
activities
of
which
is
carrying
on
propaganda,
or
otherwise
attempting,
to
influence
legislation
…
and
which
does
not
participate
in,
or
intervene
in
(including
the
publishing
or
distributing
of
statements),
any
political
campaign
on
behalf
of
(or
in
opposition
to)
any
candidate
for
public
office.”
That
means
—
or
should
mean,
anyway
—
that
if
either
a
secular
charity
or
a
church
endorses
a
particular
candidate
for
President,
the
organization
will
lose
its
tax-exempt
status.
But
evangelical
churches
really,
really
wanted
to
endorse
Republicans
from
the
pulpit
and
keep
all
the
goodies
from
being
tax-exempt
501(c)(3)
organizations.
And
so,
they
did.
Beginning
in
2008,
the
Alliance
Defending
Freedom
started
organizing
what
it
called
“Pulpit
Freedom
Sundays,”
encouraging
pastors
to
publicly
flout
the
law
by
endorsing
specific
candidates
in
their
sermons.
For
example,
on
May
15,
2022,
Pastor
(and
January
6th
insurrectionist)
Greg
Locke
preached
that
Democrats
were
“baby-butchering
election
thieves”
unwelcome
in
his
house
of
god:
If
you
vote
Democrat,
I
don’t
even
want
you
around
this
church.
You
can
get
out.
You
can
get
out,
you
demon.
You
can
get
out,
you
baby-butchering,
election
thief.
You
cannot
be
a
Christian
and
vote
Democrat
in
this
nation.
I
don’t
care
how
mad
that
makes
you.
You
can
get
as
pissed
off
as
you
want
to.
You
cannot
be
a
Christian
and
vote
Democrat
in
this
nation.
You
cannot
be
a
Democrat
and
a
Christian.
You
cannot.
Somebody
say
“Amen.”
The
rest
of
you
get
out.
Get
out!
Get
out
in
the
name
of
Jesus!
It’s
difficult
to
imagine
a
more
flagrant
violation
of
a
law
prohibiting
“opposition
to
any
candidate
for
public
office”
than
opposing
literally
every
candidate
of
one
political
party.
And
the
IRS
did
exactly
nothing.
Over
the
past
17
years,
just
one
church
has
ever
been
investigated
by
the
IRS
for
violating
the
Johnson
Amendment,
and
there,
too,
the
government
declined
to
take
any
remedial
action.
But
even
the
tacit
refusal
to
enforce
the
Johnson
Amendment
is
not
enough.
The
Christian
right
wants
the
law
declared
unconstitutional
to
allow
it
to
be
able
to
double
dip
and
play
politics,
too.
And
so,
as
with
so
many
rightwing
causes,
conservative
activists
went
looking
for
a
test
case
and
a
friendly
judge
to
shop
it
to.
What
Would
Jesus
Do
Vote
For
In
August
of
2024,
National
Religious
Broadcasters,
an
“association
of
Christian
communicators,”
sued
the
IRS,
claiming
that
the
Johnson
Amendment
violates
the
First
Amendment.
NRB
is
headquartered
in
DC,
but
luckily
it
had
a
couple
of
Texas
churches
along
for
the
ride,
which
is
how
National
Religious
Broadcasters
v.
Werfel
wound
up
in
the
Eastern
District
of
Texas
in
front
of
Judge
J.
Campbell
Barker,
a
Trump
appointee
who
authored
an
amicus
brief
in
favor
of
the
hate-baker
in
the
Masterpiece
Cakeshop
case
back
when
he
was
the
Deputy
Solicitor
General
of
Texas.
District
courts
in
Texas
have
become
a
sort
of
one-stop
shop
for
conservatives
seeking
nationwide
injunctions
blocking
everything
from
medication
abortion
to
caps
on
credit
card
fees.
But
that
plan
hit
a
snag
last
week
when
the
Supreme
Court
discovered
that
nationwide
injunctions
are
actually
illegal.
Who
knew?
The
new
rule
magicked
up
by
the
Roberts
Court
makes
it
harder
for
judges
to
stop
Trump
from
doing
crazy,
illegal
stuff
like
banning
birthright
citizenship
by
executive
fiat.
But
it
also
means
that
a
victory
in
NRB
v.
Werfel
can
provide
tax
relief
only
as
to
the
named
plaintiffs.
The
demand
for
a
declaratory
judgment
calling
the
Johnson
Amendment
unconstitutional
and
barring
its
enforcement
nationwide
is
functionally
DOA.
But
when
Sam
Alito
closes
a
door,
he
opens
up
a
window…
and
pushes
civil
society
out
it
One
of
the
reasons
Christian
conservatives
are
so
loyal
to
Trump
is
that
he
has
remade
America’s
courts
by
nominating
judges
willing
to
tear
down
the
wall
between
church
and
state.
In
the
past,
it
was
understood
that
governments
could
not
fund
religious
organizations
without
violating
the
First
Amendment’s
Establishment
Clause.
But
the
Supreme
Court
has
increasingly
turned
this
on
its
head,
ruling
that
it
violates
the
Free
Exercise
Clause
to
force
churches
to
“choose”
between
their
religious
beliefs
and
receiving
a
government
benefit.
In
2017,
the
Court
ruled
in
Trinity
Lutheran
v.
Comer
that
it
was
unconstitutional
for
the
state
of
Missouri
to
pay
to
resurface
public
school
playgrounds
while
refusing
to
extend
those
grants
to
parochial
schools.
Two
weeks
ago
it
held
in
Mahmoud
v.
Taylor
that
public
schools
must
allow
religious
parents
to
yank
their
kids
out
of
any
classroom
where
the
mere
existence
of
LBGTQ+
people
is
acknowledged
because
“Public
education
is
a
public
benefit,
and
the
government
cannot
‘condition’
its
‘availability’
on
parents’
willingness
to
accept
a
burden
on
their
religious
exercise.”
And
so
it
is
no
coincidence
that
the
NRB
plaintiffs
framed
their
case
as
one
of
poor,
beleaguered
religious
organizations
being
forced
to
choose
between
exercising
their
First
Amendment
right
to
endorse
political
candidates
and
their
501(c)(3)
tax
status.
Meanwhile
back
in
Tyler,
Texas…
When
the
NRB
plaintiffs
filed
they
complaint
in
August,
they
clearly
intended
to
tee
up
their
case
for
the
Fifth
Circuit
and
then
the
Supreme
Court
as
a
vehicle
to
overturn
the
Johnson
Amendment.
Then
Trump
got
elected,
and
they
likely
hoped
that
the
DOJ
would
switch
sides,
perhaps
entering
into
a
consent
decree
for
a
nationwide
injunction.
But
after
CASA
v.
Trump,
that’s
off
the
table,
and
so
the
Trump
administration
did
the
next
best
thing.
On
Monday
it
filed
a
joint
motion
with
the
plaintiffs
asking
Judge
Barker
to
approve
a
consent
judgment
settling
the
case.
So
far,
he’s
stayed
all
deadlines
to
consider
it.
In
the
motion,
the
DOJ
very
carefully
picked
its
way
around
the
issue
of
nationwide
injunctions,
agreeing
only
that
“the
Court
has
the
power
to
provide
the
injunction
with
respect
to
the
Plaintiffs
requested
by
this
Motion
under
the
U.S.
Constitution
and
the
Judiciary
Act
of
1789.”
Instead,
it
used
the
filing
to
announce
that
the
IRS
will
henceforth
interpret
the
Johnson
Amendment
as
if
it
does
not
bar
churches
from
making
political
endorsements.
The
government
begins
by
parsing
the
Merriam-Webster
definitions
of
“participate”
and
“intervene”
and
—
eureka!
—
concludes
that
endorsements
from
the
pulpit
are
kosher
after
all.
Bona
fide
communications
internal
to
a
house
of
worship,
between
the
house
of
worship
and
its
congregation,
in
connection
with
religious
services,
do
neither
of
those
things,
any
more
than
does
a
family
discussion
concerning
candidates.
Thus,
communications
from
a
house
of
worship
to
its
congregation
in
connection
with
religious
services
through
its
usual
channels
of
communication
on
matters
of
faith
do
not
run
afoul
of
the
Johnson
Amendment
as
properly
interpreted.
Then
it
commits
a
Cirque
du
Soleil-worthy
act
of
historical
contortionism
by
claiming
that
the
Establishment
Clause
actually
prohibits
the
government
from
“regulating”
religious
observance
by
denying
it
a
government
subsidy.
The
argument
is
that
enforcing
the
Johnson
Amendment
(or
any
restriction
on
a
church’s
political
speech
whatsoever)
is
tantamount
to
preferring
one
religious
denomination
over
another
because
it
“treats
religions
that
do
not
speak
directly
to
matters
of
electoral
politics
more
favorably
than
religions
that
do.”
Finally,
it
argues
that
the
court
is
obliged
to
interpret
the
statute
to
avoid
this
glaring
constitutional
defect
the
DOJ
and
the
ADF
just
made
up:
“The
doctrine
of
constitutional
avoidance
counsels
in
favor
of
interpreting
the
Johnson
Amendment
so
that
it
does
not
reach
communications
from
a
house
of
worship
to
its
congregation
in
connection
with
religious
services
through
its
usual
channels
of
communication
on
matters
of
faith.”
Because
if
they
can’t
repeal
the
law,
and
they
can’t
get
a
nationwide
injunction,
then
BY
GOD
they
are
going
to
use
the
federal
docket
as
a
forum
to
dance
around
the
open
grave
and
invite
the
Supreme
Court
to
toss
that
body
in.
RIP
separation
of
church
and
state.
Subscribe
to
read
more
at
Law
and
Chaos….
Liz
Dye and Andrew
Torrez produce
the
Law
and
Chaos Substack and podcast.
You
can
subscribe
to
their
Substack
by
clicking
the
logo:
