When were bans preventing non-Christians from holding state offices legally overturned and by whom?

1. How a single 1961 ruling erased state religious-tests from practice — and why it mattered

The decisive legal turning point came on June 19, 1961, when the Supreme Court unanimously held in Torcaso v. Watkins that a Maryland constitutional provision requiring belief in God as a qualification for public office violated the First Amendment as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Hugo Black’s opinion rejected the state’s religious test and affirmed that states cannot impose a religious belief requirement for public office, effectively nullifying similar provisions nationwide insofar as they would be enforceable. The Torcaso ruling aligned state practice with the federal prohibition on religious tests found in Article VI and reinforced religious liberty protections for non-Christians and nonbelievers seeking public office ^{[3] [2]}.

2. The legal reasoning: First and Fourteenth Amendments fused to block state religious tests

The Court grounded Torcaso on the First Amendment’s protection of belief and the Fourteenth Amendment’s incorporation doctrine, holding that state-imposed religious tests intrude on freedom of conscience and religion. The decision emphasized that no person can be barred from public office for professing religious disbelief, meaning state provisions requiring a declaration of belief in God were unconstitutional. The Torcaso opinion also referenced the longstanding national tradition against religious tests, synthesizing Article VI’s ban on federal religious tests with the constitutional protections that the Court found applicable to state action under the Fourteenth Amendment ^{[2] [5]}.

3. What followed in subsequent rulings and practice — continued clarifications and extensions

Torcaso set a clear precedent that state religious tests are unconstitutional, and later decisions reinforced related principles. For example, McDaniel v. Paty ^[6] struck down state laws disqualifying clergy from holding office, further underscoring that both affirmative and negative religious qualifications on officeholders are impermissible. These decisions together created a stable body of case law protecting religious freedom and office eligibility, which courts have repeatedly cited to block state-level religious restrictions that would bar non-Christians or nonbelievers from public office ^[7].

4. Discrepancy between law and constitutions on the books — lingering provisions and recent challenges

Despite the Supreme Court’s rulings, several state constitutions still contain outdated language requiring belief in God or prohibiting atheists from holding office. These provisions remain textually present but legally unenforceable because Torcaso and related rulings nullify their practical effect. Recent state-level developments show the dynamic between legal doctrine and administrative practice: New Jersey moved in 2023 to drop its religious oath requirement after a lawsuit by a nontheist, issuing an optional oath that omits references to God — an example of administrative change following constitutional invalidation rather than immediate textual amendment ^{[4] [8]}.

5. Political and social context: why some language remains and whose interests it serves

The persistence of religious-test language in state constitutions reflects historical legacies and sometimes political calculations. Religious constituencies and traditionalist politicians may resist formal amendment processes that would remove these clauses, because retaining the language serves symbolic or mobilizational purposes, despite its legal impotence. Conversely, civil rights advocates and nonbelievers push for explicit clean-up of constitutions to eliminate stigma and potential local confusion. The practical landscape today is that legal authority bars religious tests for office nationwide, while political realities and local administrative practices occasionally lag behind, prompting litigation and administrative corrections like the New Jersey example ^{[4] [8]}.

Sources: Supreme Court majority opinion and commentary in Torcaso v. Watkins ^[1] establish the legal overthrow of state religious tests; subsequent cases like McDaniel v. Paty and reporting on state actions such as New Jersey’s 2023 change document how the rule has been implemented and why outdated constitutional language persists ^{[3] [7] [4] [2]}.