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 still had religious test clauses in their constitutions as of 2025?
Executive Summary
As of the materials collected in the supplied analyses, there is disagreement about how many and which U.S. states still carry religious test language in their constitutions in 2025: one set of analyses reports eight states with explicit religious-test provisions, while other compilations catalog dozens of state provisions that mention God, religious tests, or related qualifications [1] [2]. All sources agree on a key legal fact: the Supreme Court’s decision in Torcaso v. Watkins [3] and the Constitution’s Article VI bar enforceable religious tests, so any remaining constitutional language is unenforceable even if it has not been formally removed [4] [5].
1. Conflicting tallies — eight states or many more? Why the counts diverge
The most direct claim in the analyses is that eight states retained explicit religious-test clauses as of 2024–2025: Arkansas, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas [1]. That narrower list appears in a single 2024 analysis that explicitly names the eight states [1]. By contrast, a different compilation — a state-constitution tool and related summaries — lists a much broader set of states whose constitutions contain language addressing religious tests, acknowledgments of a “Supreme Being,” or religious oaths; that compilation names many states across regions, from Alabama and Arizona to Wyoming [2]. The discrepancy stems from differing definitions: some reviews count only explicit, archaic “must believe in God” clauses while others include any constitutional provision that mentions God, oaths, or prohibitions on religious tests, producing two competing tallies in the supplied material [6] [2].
2. What the Supreme Court and federal law settle — enforceability is dead letter
All analyses underscore the settled constitutional rule: Article VI of the U.S. Constitution prohibits religious tests for federal office, and the Supreme Court in Torcaso v. Watkins made clear that state religious tests are unconstitutional and therefore unenforceable [4] [5]. The supplied materials emphasize that even where state constitutions still contain old religious-test language, those provisions cannot lawfully be used to bar someone from office or to constitutionally condition public service on belief in God. This legal consensus explains why some states have left archaic language in place; because federal constitutional doctrine and Supreme Court precedent render such clauses symbolic at most, not operative [4] [6].
3. Why some sources list specific states differently — scope, methodology, and date
The analyses show that differences in reported states reflect methodological choices and snapshot dates. One source offered a specific eight-state list in mid‑2024 and framed the result as notable because Torcaso made such clauses unenforceable [1]. Another compilation, dated late 2024 and early 2025, appears to draw from a broader database of state constitutional provisions and flags many more states with any religious language — including prohibitions on religious tests as well as affirmative religious oaths or invocations of a “Supreme Being” — producing a far longer roster [2]. In short, counting either “explicit, test-like requirements” or “any religious-language provisions” produces very different inventories and public impressions [2].
4. Practical implications — symbolism, litigation risk, and reform momentum
Practically, the supplied analyses make clear that remaining religious-test clauses are symbolic because of Torcaso and Article VI, but symbolism can matter politically and legally. Several sources note that such clauses have prompted litigation threats, legislative repeal efforts, and public advocacy for constitutional housekeeping to remove archaic language [6] [1]. Where constitutions require oath language invoking God or the afterlife, civil libertarians argue those phrases can stigmatize nonbelievers despite being unenforceable; reformers therefore press state legislatures or constitutional conventions to strike the language. Conversely, defenders of the language sometimes argue historical continuity or religious heritage; the supplied materials record both impulses and the fact that enforceability is barred by federal precedent [4] [6].
5. Bottom line — what we can reliably conclude from these materials
From the supplied analyses, the reliable conclusions are threefold: first, there is no single consensus list in the materials — one account lists eight states as of 2024 while other compilations list many more states with religious language [1] [2]. Second, Torcaso v. Watkins and Article VI render any state religious-test clause legally unenforceable [4] [5]. Third, whether a state’s constitution contains such language today depends on the reviewer’s criteria (explicit disqualifying language vs. any religious wording), and the supplied sources document both viewpoints and the dates of their inventories [6] [2]. If you want a definitive, state-by-state inventory limited to a single definition (for example, “explicit, disqualifying religious-test clauses”), I can produce a reconciled list and cite the exact constitutional lines referenced from the compilations above.