- in United States
- with readers working within the Accounting & Consultancy, Aerospace & Defence and Oil & Gas industries
On March 31, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas published an Opinion and Order in National Religious Broadcasters v. Bessent which highlighted the jurisdictional limits on pre-enforcement challenges to federal tax law, particularly in the context of the Johnson Amendment. Rather than resolving the constitutional questions presented, the court dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, effectively halting the parties' attempt to obtain judicial approval of a negotiated consent judgement narrowing of the statute.
The plaintiffs, a group of religious organizations and churches, filed suit challenging the Johnson Amendment's prohibition on political campaign intervention by §501(c)(3) entities, asserting violations of the First Amendment, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the Fifth Amendment. The plaintiffs did not allege past enforcement action against them, but instead relied on a theory of chilled speech, arguing that they would engage in political expression but for the statute's existence.
Although the parties later sought to resolve the case through a consent judgment adopting a narrowed interpretation of the statute, the district court determined that it lacked jurisdiction to enter such relief. The court found that the plaintiffs' allegations did not establish a sufficiently concrete and imminent injury, but instead reflected a generalized intent to engage in potentially prohibited conduct at some undefined point in the future. As a result, the dispute remained too speculative to support federal jurisdiction. The absence of a case or controversy also meant that the court could not approve or enforce the parties' proposed consent judgment, regardless of their agreement on a narrowing construction of the statute.
The decision reinforces a limitation on the use of pre-enforcement litigation to reshape federal tax law. Even where both plaintiffs and the government align in seeking a particular interpretation, Article III requires an actual dispute grounded in concrete facts, not a hypothetical or advisory disagreement. Although administrative agencies retain discretion in enforcement and may adopt interpretive positions, they cannot rewrite statutory boundaries in the absence of a live case or controversy.
Religious organizations seeking clarity on the scope of permissible political speech remain subject to the existing statutory framework, and any meaningful narrowing of that framework will likely require either a case with standing or legislative action.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
