A Catholic cardinal made a rare request of his congregation on Sunday: rebuke anyone supporting President Donald Trump’s immigration policies. The unusual statement came days after the Justice Department intervened in a dispute over whether religious institutions can endorse political candidates or campaigns.
Washington, D.C., Cardinal Robert McElroy is a frequent critic of Trump and his policies. He hasn’t shied away from making his stance known, previously banding with other cardinals in January to urge humanity in foreign policy. His positions were known when he was appointed archbishop of the Archdiocese of Washington in February, which is in the nation’s capital.
Download the Straight Arrow app today to get the stories that matter free from manipulation, bias or agenda.™
Point phone camera here
McElroy reiterated his view of Trump Sunday, this time from the dais to other Catholics attending the commemoration for the World Day of Migrants and Refugees at St. Matthew Cathedral, about four blocks northeast of the White House. His speech focused on immigration enforcement under Trump and how it has evolved from deporting people who committed serious crimes to ending protections for refugees and asylum seekers, McElroy claimed.
“For us as a nation, we can pass by no more,” he said, according to the archdiocese’s livestream. “We must stop, recognize the evil that is being carried out in our name, and fight every dimension of it.”
Trump and the Justice Department haven’t commented on McElroy’s speech.
The archbishop didn’t tell congregants who to vote for (or who not to), but his rebuke comes at a time when some religious groups are in court with claims they have a right to free speech. Speech that includes the right to support political candidates, one group argued.
“For too long, churches have been instructed to remain silent on pressing matters of conscience and conviction during election season or risk their 501(c)(3) status,” Troy Miller, president of the National Religious Broadcasters, said in 2024. “We believe that all nonprofits should have the constitutional right to freely express their point of view on candidates, elections, and issues on the ballot.”
Johnson Amendment challenges head to appellate court
McElroy’s statements likely didn’t violate the Johnson Amendment because he didn’t expressly instruct congregants how to vote.
The Johnson Amendment, named after former President Lyndon B. Johnson, forbade nonprofit charities from outwardly endorsing a political candidate or using their grounds for politicking. If a place violates the tax law, it could lose its tax-exempt status — a rare occurrence, the Freedom From Religion Foundation wrote in a court brief supporting the IRS.
“Not only is there a long history of nonenforcement of the Johnson Amendment, but Congress has enacted special IRS procedures that protect churches from enforcement,” the group wrote. “Even more explicitly, this current administration disavowed any intention of enforcing the Johnson Amendment in Executive Order 13798.”
Supporters of the law have said it establishes a line that the groups cannot cross while serving the community. Others, like the NRB, have said it forces religious leaders into self-censorship to avoid a costly loss of their tax-exempt status.
If McElroy did endorse or tell congregants who to vote for, it could have been permissible under the IRS’s consent decree with the NRB. The agreement permitted a religious institution to endorse candidates to its congregants because it would be a private matter, The New York Times reported in July.
However, the decree forbade Trump and his successors from enforcing the ban against the NRB, Sand Springs Church in Athens, Texas, First Baptist Church Waskom of Texas and the nonprofit Intercessors for America in Purcellville, Virginia. The groups filed an appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in April, requesting the court to reassess their case. They argued their self-censorship should be enough for a legal challenge.
The Justice Department filed a brief supporting the NRB on Sept. 21 and wrote that the IRS’s enforcement under the Johnson Amendment would run afoul of the church’s autonomy. The belief permits religious institutions to decide their government, faith and beliefs without judicial interference, according to Yale University Law School.
Religious leaders dip into politics
It’s not unusual for religious leaders to open their doors for politicians.
Synagogues and churches have welcomed political candidates so worshippers can question them about issues related to their religion or what their community has experienced.
That happened in a primary debate at the Stephen Wise Free Synagogue in Manhattan between the candidates vying for the Democratic nomination for New York’s 12th Congressional District. The candidates focused on antisemitism, anti-Zionism and Israel on the stage, with Rabbi Ammiel Hirsch moderating, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency reported in May.
Round out your reading
- Lawyer says 57 Cornell frat members were in the group chat. Could their silence be a crime?
- Florida county discovers mysterious Flock cameras with no obvious owner.
- Off Script: They won their primaries on one message. Now it’s disappearing.
- Some question whether a popular affordable housing policy is making the nation’s home shortage worse.
- Kelvin wave incoming: Why the US should care.
