Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU) is asking a federal court in Tyler, Texas, to allow it to intervene against a proposed Consent Decree that would free churches from a long-standing regulation that bars tax-exempt religious groups from publicly opposing and supporting political candidates.

The proposed Consent Decree would be issued by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division, as an agreement between the defendant, the IRS, which regulates tax-exempt organizations, and the plaintiffs, the National Religious Broadcasters (NRB) and two local Texas congregations.

Under the agreement, churches would no longer be subject to the Johnson Amendment’s barring of pastors from discussing political issues from the pulpit or otherwise making public statements on political issues. The Johnson Amendment was introduced by then-Senator Lyndon B. Johnson (LBJ) in 1954, who faced widespread criticism from conservative evangelical pastors across the Lone Star State.

If the agreement is issued, the IRS would henceforth agree with the plaintiffs that “when a house of worship in good faith speaks to its congregation, through its customary channels of communication on matters of faith in connection with religious services, concerning electoral politics viewed through the lens of religious faith, it neither ‘participate[s]’ nor ‘intervene[s]’ in a ‘political campaign,’ within the ordinary meaning of those words.”

The agreement also notes that “for many houses of worship, the exercise of their religious beliefs includes teaching or instructing their congregations regarding all aspects of life, including guidance concerning the impact of faith on the choices inherent in electoral politics. Interpreting the Johnson Amendment to reach such communications would create serious tension with the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause.”

The agreement continues, “That broad interpretation would treat religions that do not speak directly to matters of electoral politics more favorably than religions that do so, [thus] favoring some religions over others based on their speech to their own congregations in connection with religious services through customary channels of worship and religious communication.”

Despite its limited application, the proposed Consent Decree would provide a powerful precedent that would almost certainly be cited by other churches and religious groups seeking to exercise their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech without fear of losing their tax exemption.

But the AU is determined to stop the Consent Decree from ever being issued. In its motion to be permitted to intervene against the Consent Decree, AU argued that the IRS is taking “the consequential step of abandoning the defense of a federal law that has safeguarded our democracy for decades. As Defendant-Intervenor, Americans United will provide a critical perspective, including timely arguments opposing the Proposed Consent Decree, that will otherwise be absent from this case and that will support this Court’s duty to reject entry of unlawful consent decrees.”

The AU is among the oldest and most litigious left-wing advocacy groups, frequently filing in local, state, and federal courts in its effort to protect what it considers to be a complete separation of church and state. Doing so “ensures that all people are treated the same — full civil rights regardless of religious beliefs or the religious beliefs of others,” AU claims.

The Johnson Amendment case is drawing national attention across the political spectrum. Liberty Counsel (LC), the Orlando, Florida-based religious liberties defense firm, filed an Amicus Curiae brief in the case. In a statement announcing the filing, LC explained the political background to Johnson’s actions in offering the amendment bearing his name.

“Prior to becoming president, [LBJ] introduced this amendment to the Internal Revenue Code after barely winning his Senate primary due to staunch opposition from nonprofit organizations. Johnson won the Democratic primary after false ballots appeared after the polls closed, each in alphabetical order and in the same handwriting. The Johnson Amendment, adopted in 1954, was ‘political vengeance’ to ‘silence his critics’ and has since been used to silence churches and other nonprofit religious organizations,” the LC statement said.

In its amicus brief, LC told the federal court that the Johnson Amendment “is vague and overbroad and thereby leads to inconsistent enforcement and the chilling of otherwise permissible speech. The vague guidance regarding the scope of the Amendment has caused many churches to steer away from discussing any political matters to avoid scrutiny from the IRS.”

In addition, according to LC, the IRS “has enforced the Amendment against some churches while turning a blind eye to blatant violations by secular groups like the NAACP. The inconsistent application of the amendment has undermined the credibility of the law and fueled allegations of bias and religious viewpoint discrimination.”

LC further argued that the Consent Decree should be adopted because “on its face, the amendment violates the First Amendment because it prevents the discussion of political candidates, which is core political speech where First Amendment protection is ‘at its zenith.’”

And, according to the LC, the Consent Agreement should be issued because “for many churches, political speech is inextricably linked to a church’s religious duty, doctrine, and faith, and [has] sincerely held religious beliefs that Scripture compels them to speak on cultural and political issues of the day.”