South Dakota pastor to test freedom of speech for churches

A pastor in South Dakota is moving to challenge the ability of the federal government (via the IRS) to prevent churches from endorsing candidates (or pastors from doing so in the pulpit).

Reverend Wayne Williams of Liberty Baptist Tabernacle in Rapid City, South Dakota endorsed Republican state Senator Gordon Howie's bid for governor last month, specifically hoping to draw a challenge from the IRS so he could begin a legal challenge on the issue in federal court and produce a constitutional test case.

(Via the Washington Times):

At issue is an IRS regulation called the Johnson Amendment, enacted in 1954, that says that 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, the section of the tax code under which most churches file, cannot endorse a specific political candidate and retain its nonprofit classification.

"Why is it that I cannot walk with my Master, my Lord, in speaking on government issues?" asked Mr. Williams, citing the example of other religious leaders such as King, John the Baptist and biblical prophets, all of whom involved themselves in political issues. ...

Mr. Williams said he will fight for his right to speak from the pulpit whatever he sees most fitting for his congregation, regardless of the consequences.

"I would welcome the history of my Baptist forefathers in going to jail over these issues," he said. "I will not be silenced by intimidation." ...

The Rapid City pastor is working with the Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative-leaning group that defends religious freedom.

Erik Stanley, an attorney for the organization, said the fund has been hoping that by encouraging pastors to break the federal tax code restrictions, they could get a test case to court and have the law declared an infringement of the First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion.

And, just like clockwork, the liberal Americans United for Separation of Church and State have filed a protest.  But of course this is just want Rev. Williams wanted.

Given that the Supreme Court hasn't addressed the issue directly since 1992, and certainly not since the court has moved in a more originalist direction when it comes to the Constitution, it will be interesting to see how this turns out.