Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Which U.S. states had laws or constitutions that explicitly barred people of certain religions (e.g., Muslims) from office and when were those provisions removed or invalidated?
Executive Summary
Several U.S. states originally included explicit religious tests in their constitutions or statutes that effectively barred adherents of certain faiths—including non-Christians such as Muslims and atheists—from holding public office; these provisions were progressively invalidated by federal constitutional law and court rulings, most notably the Supreme Court decision in Torcaso v. Watkins [1] which struck down a Maryland requirement that officeholders declare belief in God [2]. While the U.S. Constitution’s Article VI bars religious tests for federal officeholders and the Fourteenth Amendment extended those protections to the states through judicial interpretation, remnant language persists in some state documents even though courts have rendered such provisions unenforceable [3] [4].
1. How explicit bans looked and whom they targeted — the colonial to early republican pattern that still surprises readers
Early state constitutions and statutes often required officeholders to profess belief in God, Jesus Christ, or the Christian religion, a pattern visible in founding-era documents such as Delaware’s 1776 constitution and Maryland’s 1776 requirements; these clauses explicitly excluded non-Christians and non-believers from public office and persisted in various forms into the 19th and 20th centuries [5] [6]. The historical record shows these were not theoretical barriers but concrete legal tests tied to oaths and eligibility, reflecting prevailing religious norms of the period; scholars emphasize that these provisions functioned to exclude Jews, Muslims, Deists, and atheists from civic leadership and to entrench a Christian public status in state law [7] [2]. Contemporary scholarship frames these rules as a legacy of English religious-test practices transplanted into American state constitutions [7].
2. The constitutional turning point — Torcaso and the federal bar on religious tests
The critical legal turning point came with the U.S. Constitution’s Religious Test Clause in Article VI, which states that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States,” and with 20th-century litigation that applied equal-protection and due-process doctrines to state laws [3]. The Supreme Court’s 1961 decision in Torcaso v. Watkins declared that a Maryland requirement that public officials profess belief in God violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments, thereby invalidating state-imposed religious tests as unconstitutional. Modern legal analyses and historical surveys place Torcaso at the center of the transition from formal state exclusion to judicially enforced religious equality, and they note that this decision rendered state provisions legally void even when the language remained in codified texts [2] [8].
3. Why some states still show exclusionary language and what that means in practice
Many state constitutions retain archaic language that appears to impose religious qualifications, but the presence of such language does not mean those provisions are enforceable; courts have uniformly treated them as superseded by the federal constitutional standard established in Torcaso and subsequent cases [4]. Legal compendia and state-constitution trackers document that several states contain dormant clauses from the 18th and 19th centuries, and modern state constitutional toolkits stress that these are relics rather than active barriers—though advocacy groups press legislatures to formally repeal them to eliminate symbolic stigma and potential confusion [4] [8]. The practical effect is that individuals, including Muslims, are constitutionally eligible for office despite the lingering text in some state constitutions [6].
4. The modern scholarly and advocacy debate — cleansing the text versus relying on court precedent
Scholars and civil-rights advocates argue there is a democratic and symbolic imperative to remove archaic religious-test language from state constitutions to reflect settled law and promote inclusion, while some state actors treat repeal as low priority because judicial precedent already bars enforcement [8] [4]. Historical studies highlight how these provisions reveal early American exclusionary impulses, and contemporary legal commentaries note that formal repeal aids civic clarity and counters the perception that certain faiths remain unwelcome; opponents of repeal sometimes frame it as unnecessary housekeeping given Torcaso and the Article VI bar to tests [3] [5]. The competing emphases—legal finality versus symbolic rectification—shape whether and how states take legislative or ballot steps to excise such language [4].
5. The bottom line: who was affected, when change occurred, and what remains
In sum, multiple states enacted explicit religious tests in their founding and early constitutional texts that barred non-Christians and non-believers from office; key examples include Maryland and Delaware and similar provisions scattered across other early state constitutions [5] [6]. The legal invalidation occurred mainly through federal constitutional law culminating in Torcaso v. Watkins in 1961 and the application of the First and Fourteenth Amendments, though remnants of the old language persist in some state documents and have prompted ongoing calls for formal repeal to eliminate stigma and confusion [2] [3] [8]. The factual landscape is settled: legal barriers are gone, textual relics remain, and the debate now centers on symbolic remediation versus reliance on judicial precedent [4].