# Religious Liberty in the States 2026 > A WordPress-powered website. Language: en URL: https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/ All pages on this site are available as clean Markdown by adding the header `Accept: text/markdown` to any HTTP request. REST API: https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/wp-json/mescio-for-agents/v1/markdown?url={page_url} ## Pages - [In the News](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/news/): Title Subscribe to Email Updates Get the latest news from Religious Liberty in the States in your inbox. Unsubscribe at any time. News from Previous Years - [About Religious Liberty in the States](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/about/): About Religious Liberty in the States Religious Liberty in the States is a project of the Center for Religion, Culture & Democracy that tracks how well each U.S. state protects religious freedom through its laws and policies. Led by director - [404 Page](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/404-page/) - [Contact](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/contact/): Title Have a question or want to get in touch? Use the form below to contact the Religious Liberty in the States team. Whether you have a media inquiry, technical issue, or general feedback, we welcome your message. You can - [Sitemap](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/sitemap/): Sitemap Sitemap Table of Contents Pages2024 DatasetAbout Religious Liberty in the StatesAdvisory CouncilAccessibility StatementCodes and ScoringContactDownloads2022 Dataset2022 Report2023 Dataset2023 Executive Summary2023 Report2024 ReportErrataFederal Context, State Inaction, and Social NormsFrequently Asked QuestionsHomeIn the NewsLottie ModuleMedia KitMethodologyPrivacy PolicyRLS 2022 ArchiveRLS 2023 ArchiveRLS - [Accessibility Statement](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/accessibility/): Disclaimer We believe that every person has the right to live with dignity, equality, comfort, and independence. Despite our efforts to make all pages and content on this website easy to access for people with disabilities, some content may not - [Accessibility Problem Reported](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/accessibility/thanks/): Thank you! Your accessibility problem has been reported. Our technical team will investigate and reply within 10 business days. Return to Home Page - [Thank You for Contacting Us!](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/contact/thanks/): Your information has been sent. We will contact you within 1 business day. Return to Home Page - [Downloads](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/downloads/): Title The Downloads page provides access to the full 2026 Religious Liberty in the States report, including this year's updates, complete rankings, and key visuals. You can also download the full dataset, which includes data from previous years, research notes, - [Safeguards](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/safeguards/): Title Now in its fifth edition, RLS measures the presence or lack of each of 20 safeguards in each state. States differ greatly, as reflected in the range of RLS 2026 scores (as percentages of an ideal) across the 50 - [States](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/states/): Title The First Amendment and federal legislation offer important protections for religious liberty, but there are many areas where states can protect, or refuse to protect, religious freedom. Religious Liberty in the States considers fifty distinct ways that states protect, - [Methodology](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/methodology/): Title Because religious liberty matters, so does careful measurement of its component parts and causal factors. Objectivity is critical for meaningful measurement and consistent with the highest standards of research integrity. RLS is further committed to transparency, providing rationale for - [Media Kit](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/media-kit/): Title The Religious Liberty in the States Media Kit provides logos, social graphics, and ready-to-use messaging for press and partners. It includes high-resolution images and talking points to help share and explain the report. Whether you are writing an article, - [Frequently Asked Questions](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/faq/): Title Since the inception of Religious Liberty in the States, we have received thoughtful questions and feedback from readers. Search for your question below and click on the down arrow for answers. For other questions, including technical support, please contact - [2022 Report](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/downloads/2022-report/): 2022 Full Report Religious Liberty in the States The report (PDF) includes an executive summary, overview, tables and rankings, discussion of methodology, FAQ, and all 50 state scorecards.Click to download PDF - [2022 Dataset](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/downloads/2022-dataset/): 2022 Dataset Religious Liberty in the States This dataset (.xlsx) contains the data used to construct the index and rankings.Click to download XLSX - [Federal Context, State Inaction, and Social Norms](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/federal-context-state-inaction-and-social-norms/): Safeguards The table below provides more detail for two of our FAQs specifically revealing why it is necessary to account for federal context when determining whether a "missing" exemption is a lack of safeguard or not, and whether social norms - [Subscribe to Email Updates](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/subscribe/): Title Sign up for updates about Religious Liberty in the States. You can unsubscribe using the link at the bottom of each email. - [2023 Executive Summary](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/downloads/2023-executive-summary/): Executive Summary Religious Liberty in the States 2023 A brief overview (pdf) of the changes to RLS in its second year including the new safeguards measured and the resulting scores and rankings of the 50 states in 2023.Click to download - [2023 Dataset](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/downloads/2023-dataset/): Dataset Religious Liberty in the States 2023 This dataset (.xlsx) contains the data used to construct the index and rankings, along with research notes and links to state laws. It also includes data from the previous years of the index.Click - [RLS 2022 Archive](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/rls-2022-archive/): Title Click a State to Download its Scorecard 1. Mississippi 2. Illinois 3. New Mexico 4. Florida 5. Washington 6. Utah 7. Tennessee 8. Maryland 9. Idaho 10. Kansas 11. Connecticut 12. Pennsylvania 12. Alabama 14. Missouri 14. Maine 16. - [Advisory Council](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/about/advisory-council/): Title The Religious Liberty in the States Advisory Council brings together leading scholars and practitioners from diverse academic, legal, and religious backgrounds. Council members contribute their expertise to help guide the project's research priorities and ensure academic rigor. Representing institutions - [Protected: Site Analytics](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/site-analytics/): View Report Full Screen Return to Site - [2023 Report](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/downloads/2023-report/): Report Religious Liberty in the States 2023 The report (PDF) includes an overview of what's new this year, complete state rankings, and helpful tables and figures.Click to download PDF - [2024 Report](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/downloads/2024-report/): Report Religious Liberty in the States 2024 The report (PDF) includes an overview of what's new this year, complete state rankings, and helpful tables and figures.Click to download PDF - [Codes and Scoring](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/codes-and-scoring/): Title This document provides a detailed explanation of the codes and scoring system used in the construction of the 2026 RLS dataset. It is thus recommended as a guide for researchers who are working with the data spreadsheet. The document is - [2024 Dataset](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/downloads/2024-dataset/): Dataset Religious Liberty in the States 2024 This dataset (.xlsx) contains the data used to construct the index and rankings, along with research notes and links to state laws. It also includes data from the previous years of the index.Click - [Errata and Revisions](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/errata/): Title Religious Liberty in the States is committed to the highest established standards, principles, and responsibilities for research. RLS affirms the principles and responsibilities as outlined in the Singapore Statement on Research Integrity: (1) "Honesty in all aspects of research," - [RLS 2023 Archive](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/rls-2023-archive/): Title Click a State to Download its Scorecard 1. Illinois 2. South Carolina 3. New Mexico 4. Ohio 4. Mississippi 6. Washington 7. Arkansas 8. Florida 9. Maryland 10. Pennsylvania 11. Utah 12. Tennessee 13. Delaware 14. Kansas 15. Rhode - [RLS 2024 Archive](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/rls-2024-archive/): Title Click a State to Download its Scorecard 1. Illinois 2. Florida 3. Montana 4. Arkansas 5. Ohio 5. Mississippi 7. South Carolina 8. Utah 9. Washington 10. Maryland 11. New Mexico 12. North Dakota 13. Hawaii 14. Tennessee 15. - [Home](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/): Download the Report and Data Our Downloads page provides free access to all downloadable materials, including our 2026 report, complete dataset, and 50 user-friendly state scorecards.Download Resources Download the 2026 State Rankings This downloadable PDF lists all 50 states ranked - [2026 Dataset](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/downloads/2026-dataset/): Dataset Religious Liberty in the States 2026 This dataset (.xlsx) contains the data used to construct the index and rankings, along with research notes and links to state laws. It also includes data from the previous years of the index.Click - [RLS 2025 Archive](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/rls-2025-archive/): Title View the Full RLS 2025 Website Click a State to Download its Scorecard 1. Florida 2. Montana 3. Illinois 4. Ohio 5. Mississippi 6. Arkansas 7. South Carolina 8. Washington 9. Utah 10. Tennessee 11. Arizona 12. Maryland 13. - [2026 Report](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/downloads/2026-report/): Report Religious Liberty in the States 2026 The report (PDF) includes an overview of what's new this year, complete state rankings, and helpful tables and figures.Click to download PDF - [Explore the Index with AI](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/ai/): Title You can now ask AI assistants about the Religious Liberty in the States index and get answers drawn straight from the published data. Look up how a single state ranks, or ask a broad, open-ended question that spans the - [Coming Tuesday, July 14 at 10:00 a.m. CDT](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/coming-tuesday-july-14-at-1000-a-m-cdt/): Coming Soon - Religious Liberty in the States - [Privacy Policy](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/privacy-policy/): Please wait while the policy is loaded. If it does not load, please click here to view the policy. - [Cookie Policy](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/cookie-policy/): Please wait while the policy is loaded. If it does not load, please click here to view the policy. - [Terms of Service](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/terms-of-service/): Please wait while the policy is loaded. If it does not load, please click here to view the policy. ## Blog Posts - [Announcing RLS 2026’s #1 State: Arkansas](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/announcing-rls-2026s-1-state-arkansas/) (2026-07-13): Arkansas has claimed first place in the 2026 edition of the Religious Liberty in the States (RLS) index. After ranking sixth in 2025, the Natural State surged to the top this year, overtaking Florida, which dropped to third place. Arkansas - [Announcing RLS 2026’s Runner-Up State: Tennessee](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/announcing-rls-2026s-runner-up-state-tennessee/) (2026-07-13): Tennessee has made major strides in protecting religious liberty, rising from tenth place in 2025 to second place in the 2026 Religious Liberty in the States (RLS) index. The Volunteer State now protects 85 percent of the religious liberty safeguards - [Why Florida Fell to #3: Understanding the Shift in RLS 2026](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/why-florida-fell-to-3-understanding-the-shift-in-rls-2026/) (2026-07-13): In recent years, Florida has demonstrated a strong commitment to protecting religious liberty. The Sunshine State ranked second in the RLS 2024 index and rose to first place in RLS 2025. This year, Florida remains near the top of the - [How RLS Expanded in the Fifth Edition](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/how-rls-expanded-in-the-fifth-edition/) (2026-07-13): The Religious Liberty in the States (RLS) index is designed to measure how well each state protects religious liberty through law. Since its launch in 2022, RLS has expanded each year to reflect additional areas where states can protect the - [Announcing RLS 2025’s #1 State: Florida](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/announcing-rls-2025s-1-state-florida/) (2025-07-11): Florida has claimed first place in the 2025 edition of the Religious Liberty in the States (RLS) index. After being in second place in 2024, the state has improved again this year, overtaking the two-time defending leader, Illinois, which dropped - [Announcing RLS 2025’s Runner-Up State: Montana](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/announcing-rls-2025s-runner-up-state-montana/) (2025-07-11): Montana has successfully climbed the leaderboard in this year’s Religious Liberty in the States (RLS) index, ranking second by protecting 71 percent of the religious safeguards tracked in the 2025 index. Since placing 24th with a score of 40 percent - [Why Illinois Fell to #3: Understanding the Shift in RLS 2025](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/why-illinois-fell-to-3-understanding-the-shift-in-rls-2025/) (2025-07-11): Illinois led the nation in religious liberty protections for two years in a row, 2023 and 2024, but this year there is a new leader. In 2023, the state protected 85 percent of the safeguards the Religious Liberty in the - [Must Read Alaska: Why Does Alaska Score So Low on Religious Liberty Ranking?](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/must-read-alaska-why-does-alaska-score-so-low-on-religious-liberty-ranking/) (2024-11-12): What makes The Great Land score so low when it comes to religious liberty? The main culprits are the categories of sterilization and contraception refusal, areas in which Alaska received zero marks.  - [Florida Daily: Florida Gets High Marks for Religious Liberty](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/florida-daily-florida-gets-high-marks-for-religious-liberty/) (2024-11-04): In 2023, Florida was ranked number 8 among religious liberty, in 2024, it moved up to number 2, according to a new report by the Center for Religion, Culture and Democracy (CRCD). - [The Baltimore Sun: Maryland Deserves Credit for Protecting Religious Freedom](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/the-baltimore-sun-maryland-deserves-credit-for-protecting-religious-freedom/) (2024-10-21): Recent findings from the 2024 Religious Liberty in the States (RLS) report reveal a stark contrast between Maryland and Virginia in this regard, with Maryland far surpassing its southern neighbor. - [Center for Public Justice: 2024 Report Highlights Surprising Rankings And Key Trends](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/center-for-public-justice-2024-report-highlights-surprising-rankings-and-key-trends/) (2024-08-16): The RLS annual reports assess how well states do on a range of important religious freedom protections, with the intent not only to measure the degree of protection in a state but also thereby to identify what each state can do to increase its protection. - [The Columbus Dispatch: Ohio Ranks in Top 5 States for Protecting Religious Liberties, Study Finds](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/the-columbus-dispatch-ohio-ranks-in-top-5-states-for-protecting-religious-liberties-study-finds/) (2024-08-13): When it comes to protecting religious freedoms, Ohio ranks highly as one of the top states, according to a study from the conservative legal group First Liberty Institute. - [Christian Post: Best and Worst States for Religious Liberty](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/christian-post-best-and-worst-states-for-religious-liberty/) (2024-08-08): For the second year in a row, Illinois has ranked as the best state for religious liberty because it has the most safeguards in place, while a majority of other states continue to lack adequate protections for people of faith.  - [Fox News: New Report Identifies Best and Worst US States for Religious Liberty](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/fox-news-new-report-identifies-best-and-worst-us-states-for-religious-liberty/) (2024-08-05): A recent report by First Liberty Institute, the Texas-based nonprofit Christian conservative legal organization, shows which U.S. states are making good on that promise — with others falling behind.  - [Introducing a Comprehensive Guide to Enhancing Religious Liberty](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/introducing-a-comprehensive-guide-to-enhancing-religious-liberty/) (2024-08-01): Many readers come away from studying the RLS index with questions of how exactly their state can improve. That’s why the Center for Religion, Culture & Democracy (CRCD) has published a comprehensive guide that highlights the areas where improvements can be made to ensure robust safeguards for all citizens. - [Announcing RLS 2024’s #1 State: Illinois](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/announcing-rls-2024s-1-state-illinois/) (2024-07-19): Illinois has once again earned the highest score in the Religious Liberty in the States (RLS) 2024 rankings, maintaining its position as the top state for protecting religious liberty. Despite this achievement, Illinois' overall score has dropped slightly from the - [Announcing RLS 2024’s Runner-up State: Florida](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/announcing-rls-2024s-runner-up-state-florida/) (2024-07-19): Florida's increase in the rankings is a good example of the two main ways a state's score is affected from year to year—by passing new laws and having laws on the books that are reflected in new safeguards identified by RLS over time. - [How RLS Has Expanded in Its Third Edition](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/how-rls-has-expanded-in-its-third-edition/) (2024-07-19): RLS expanded its scope this year to include two new safeguards, bringing the total to 16. Within these safeguards are items that illuminate who is protected from what consequences and what practices those protections enable those individuals to carry out. - [How To Compare Scores Year-Over-Year with RLS](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/how-to-compare-scores-year-over-year-with-rls/) (2024-07-19): The third year of the Religious Liberty in the States report, like last year’s edition, identifies new safeguards for religious liberty that have increased in awareness and importance over the past year. These new safeguards affect the state rankings from one year to the next.  - [Religion Unplugged: Illinois and South Carolina Rank Tops in Religious Liberty Index](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/religion-unplugged-illinois-and-south-carolina-rank-tops-in-religious-liberty-index/) (2024-01-09): Illinois and South Carolina have the most religious liberty safeguards currently in place, while states such as West Virginia ranked at the bottom, a report issued by a conservative think tank revealed. - [The Christian Post: Best and Worst States for Religious Liberty](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/the-christian-post-best-and-worst-states-for-religious-liberty/) (2023-11-13): The Center for Religion, Culture and Democracy at First Liberty Institute released its second annual Religious Liberty in the States report last week. The report ranked all 50 states by the number of safeguards in place for religious liberty. While Mississippi scored highest last year, Illinois received the highest score this year.  - [RealClear Religion: Not Just for Christians: How Religious Liberty Protections Benefit Religious Minorities](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/realclear-religion-not-just-for-christians-how-religious-liberty-protections-benefit-religious-minorities/) (2023-07-26): Editor’s Note: The following op-ed was published in RealClear Religion on July 19, 2023, and is authored by Trey Dimsdale, executive director of the Center for Religion, Culture & Democracy (CRCD), and Dr. Mark David Hall, senior research fellow for - [WORLD Opinions: A Blue State Makes a Big Point](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/world-opinions-a-blue-state-makes-a-big-point/) (2023-07-26): One of the most noteworthy changes from the first iteration of the index last year is that the state of Illinois has moved from the second position to the top spot. Last year’s leader, Mississippi, dropped into a tie for fourth. - [A Technical Note: Comparison Over Time and Editions of RLS](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/a-technical-note-comparison-over-time-and-editions-of-rls/) (2023-07-13): As RLS grows—aiming to measure a fuller potential for safeguarding the free exercise of religion and to provide a richer set of data to interested citizens, legislators, and scholars alike—it is important for users to note the scope of what the index is combining in a given year. - [Announcing RLS 2023’s #1 State: Illinois](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/announcing-rls-2023s-1-state-illinois/) (2023-07-13): Illinois has earned the highest score in the Religious Liberty in the States (RLS) 2023 rankings due to its long history of protecting religious liberty, resulting in a broad range of state laws that safeguard the free exercise of religion for its residents. - [Announcing RLS 2023’s Runner-up State: South Carolina](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/announcing-rls-2023s-runner-up-state-south-carolina/) (2023-07-13): South Carolina has made major strides in protecting religious liberty, significantly improving its ranking in the Religious Liberty in the States (RLS) index. While the Palmetto State ranked in 38th place in 2022 with an unimpressive score of 31 percent, it has skyrocketed to second place in 2023 with a strong score of 67 percent. - [How RLS Has Expanded in the Project’s Second Year](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/how-rls-has-expanded-in-the-projects-second-year/) (2023-07-13): The second year of RLS is a noteworthy development for the project, as it marks the first time that new safeguards were identified and changes in law were tracked over time. Learn more about how RLS has expanded in its second year. - [Jackson Sun: Tennessee Can Do Better to Protect Religious Liberties](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/jackson-sun-tennessee-can-do-better-to-protect-religious-liberties/) (2022-10-24): Editor’s Note: The following op-ed was published in the Jackson Sun on October 15, 2022, and is authored by Dr. Sean Evans, chairman of the Department of Political Science at Union University. While Tennessee Volunteer football fans are excited about being ranked #6 - [Alabama Political Reporter: Religious Liberty in Alabama: Pretty Good, Could be Better](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/alabama-political-reporter-religious-liberty-in-alabama-pretty-good-could-be-better/) (2022-10-21): Editor’s Note: The following op-ed was published in the Alabama Political Reporter on September 29, 2022, and is co-authored by Dr. Jason Jewell, chair of the Department of Humanities at Faulkner University, and Allen Mendenhall, associate dean of the Sorrell College of Business - [Holland Sentinel: Michigan Can Do Better on Religious Liberty](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/holland-sentinel-michigan-can-do-better-on-religious-liberty/) (2022-10-19): Editor’s Note: The following op-ed was published in the Holland Sentinel on September 29, 2022, and is co-authored by Dr. Sarah M. Estelle, associate professor of economics at Hope College in Holland, Mich. and director of Religious Liberty in the States, and Dr. - [Tulsa World: Oklahoma Edges Out Texas in Protecting Religious Liberty](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/tulsa-world-oklahoma-edges-out-texas-in-protecting-religious-liberty/) (2022-10-07): Editor’s Note: The following op-ed was published in the Tulsa World on October 1, 2022, and is authored by Hiram Sasser, executive general counsel for First Liberty Institute and adjunct law professor at Oklahoma City University School of Law. A new ranking of - [Townhall: Understanding the Role States Have in Protecting Liberty](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/townhall-understanding-the-role-states-have-in-protecting-liberty/) (2022-09-28): Editor's Note: The following op-ed was published in Townhall on September 25, 2022, and is authored by Patrick M. Garry, professor of law at the University of South Dakota and a fellow at the Center for Religion, Culture & Democracy. - [How Will the RLS Rankings Change After Dobbs?](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/how-will-the-rls-rankings-change-after-dobbs/) (2022-09-28): The inaugural Religious Liberty in the States (RLS) index ranks the fifty states for how well they protect religious liberty in 2022. Of course, the legal landscape in each state will change with time, which is why we’ve designed the - [RealClear Religion: Religious Liberty Beyond Red and Blue Divides](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/realclear-religion-religious-liberty-beyond-red-and-blue-divides/) (2022-09-22): Editor’s Note: The following op-ed was published in RealClear Religion on September 16, 2022, and is authored by Sarah Estelle, director of Religious Liberty in the States, associate professor of economics at Hope College (Holland, MI), and the founding director - [Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: Religious freedom in Pennsylvania is good but could be better](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/pittsburgh-post-gazette-religious-freedom-in-pennsylvania-is-good-but-could-be-better/) (2022-09-22): Editor’s Note: The following op-ed was published in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette on September 14, 2022, and is authored by Jordan Ballor, director of research at the Center for Religion, Culture & Democracy at First Liberty Institute. Pennsylvania came in 12th - [Announcing RLS 2022’s #1 State: Mississippi](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/announcing-rls-2022s-1-state-mississippi/) (2022-09-06): Mississippi has undertaken important steps to allow the free exercise of religion within its borders and, in doing so, has earned the highest score of all fifty states in the inaugural Religious Liberty in the States (RLS) rankings. The Magnolia - [Announcing RLS 2022’s Runner-up State: Illinois](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/announcing-rls-2022s-runner-up-state-illinois/) (2022-09-05): Illinois has a wide range of state laws protecting the free exercise of religion—some that have been on the books for decades, and others that have been implemented recently—earning the second-highest score of all fifty states in the inaugural Religious - [What Is the Religious Liberty in the States Index & How Does It Work?](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/what-is-the-religious-liberty-in-the-states-index-how-does-it-work/) (2022-09-04): The First Amendment in the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution establishes that people have the right to freely exercise their religion. However, where states have jurisdiction or federal laws are silent, states have the opportunity to protect certain - [The Worst States for Religious Liberty All Lack RFRAs](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/the-worst-states-for-religious-liberty-all-lack-rfras/) (2022-09-03): The Religious Liberty in the States (RLS) index captures the extent to which people have the freedom to practice their religion in their everyday lives based on their state’s laws, including how they work, spend time with their families, and ## Advisory Council - [Micah Watson, Ph.D.](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/advisory-council/micah-watson-ph-d/): Dr. Micah Watson is a native of the great golden state of California, where he completed his undergraduate degree at UC Davis. He earned his MA degree in church-state studies at Baylor University in Waco, Texas, and holds MA and - [Asma T. Uddin, J.D.](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/advisory-council/asma-t-uddin/): Asma T. Uddin is a professor, author, and lawyer specializing in religious liberty. Her recent major publications include When Islam Is Not a Religion (2019), The Politics of Vulnerability (2021), and numerous scholarly articles utilizing social science theories to map - [Amy Black, Ph.D.](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/advisory-council/amy-black/): Dr. Amy E. Black is professor of political science at Wheaton College (IL). She is a specialist in American government, and her teaching and research interests include religion and politics, women in politics, fostering civil dialogue, the Presidency and Congress. - [Deborah A. O’Malley, Ph.D.](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/advisory-council/deborah-a-omalley/): Deborah A. O’Malley is an assistant professor in the Institute of American Constitutional Thought and Leadership at the University of Toledo. She holds an M.A. and Ph.D. in political science from Baylor University and a B.A. in political science and - [Jacqueline Pfeffer Merrill, Ph.D.](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/advisory-council/jacqueline-pfeffer-merrill/): Dr. Jacqueline Pfeffer Merrill is Senior Director, Civic Learning and Free Expression Projects at the Council of Independent Colleges. She advises senior college leaders on approaches to fostering a campus culture that is diverse, inclusive, and open to robust intellectual - [John Witte Jr., J.D.](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/advisory-council/john-witte-jr/): Professor John Witte Jr. is Robert W. Woodruff University Professor of Law, McDonald Distinguished Professor of Religion, and faculty director of the Center for the Study of Law and Religion at Emory University. A leading specialist in legal history, human rights, religious - [Jonathan Den Hartog, Ph.D. ](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/advisory-council/jonathan-den-hartog/): Dr. Jonathan Den Hartog is professor of history at Samford University in Birmingham, Alabama, where he also serves as the department chair. He has published articles in Early American Studies, the Journal of Church and State, and the Faulkner Law - [Michael Wear](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/advisory-council/michael-wear/): Michael Wear is the Founder, President and CEO of the Center for Christianity and Public Life, a nonpartisan, nonprofit institution based in the nation's capital with the mission to contend for the credibility of Christian resources in public life, for - [Samuel Goldman, Ph.D.](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/advisory-council/samuel-goldman/): Samuel Goldman is an Associate Professor of Humanities in the Hamilton School for Civic and Classical Education at the University of Florida. Before joining UF, Goldman was an Associate Professor of Political Science at George Washington University. He has published in a wide range of outlets and held - [Stanley Carlson-Thies, Ph.D.](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/advisory-council/stanley-carlson-thies/): Dr. Stanley Carlson-Thies is the founder of the Institutional Religious Freedom Alliance, which promotes the religious freedoms that enable faith-based organizations to make their distinctive contributions to the common good. IRFA is a division of the Center for Public Justice, - [Vincent Phillip Muñoz, Ph.D.](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/advisory-council/vincent-phillip-munoz/): Dr. Vincent Phillip Muñoz is the Tocqueville Professor of Political Science and concurrent professor of law at the University of Notre Dame. He is the founding director of ND’s Center for Citizenship & Constitutional Government. Dr. Muñoz writes and teaches - [Waleed El-Ansary, Ph.D.](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/advisory-council/waleed-el-ansary/): Dr. Waleed El-Ansary is the Helal, Hisham and Laila Edris El-Swedey University Chair in Islamic Studies at Xavier University, where he teaches courses on comparative religion, Islamic studies, and religion and science. His research focuses on the intersection of religion, ## Safeguards - [No Religious Discrimination in Foster Parent Eligibility](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/safeguard/no-religious-discrimination-in-foster-parent-eligibility/) - [School Protections](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/safeguard/family-and-education-school-protections/) - [No Religious Discrimination in Financial Services / Insurance Provision](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/safeguard/no-religious-discrimination-in-financial-services/) - [Recusal of Counseling Provider](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/safeguard/recusal-of-counseling-provider/) - [Euthanasia Refusal](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/safeguard/euthanasia-refusal/) - [Clergy-Penitent Privilege Protected](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/safeguard/religious-ceremonial-life-clergy-as-mandatory-reporters/) - [Nonparticipation in Weddings by Clergy](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/safeguard/nonparticipation-in-weddings-by-clergy/) - [Health Insurance Mandates](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/safeguard/health-insurance-mandates/) - [Ceremonial Use of Alcohol by Minors](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/safeguard/religious-ceremonial-life-ceremonial-use-of-alcohol/) - [Houses of Worship Protected from Closing](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/safeguard/religious-ceremonial-life-houses-of-worship-protected-from-closing/) - [Religious Freedom Restoration Act](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/safeguard/religious-freedom-restoration-act/) - [Nonparticipation in Economic Arrangements](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/safeguard/marriage-weddings-for-profit-business-nonparticipation/) - [Nonparticipation in Weddings by Public Officials](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/safeguard/marriage-weddings-public-official-recusal/) - [Religious Entity Refusal to Participate in Weddings](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/safeguard/marriage-weddings-refusal-of-religious-entities/) - [Contraception Refusal](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/safeguard/health-care-provision-contraception-refusal/) - [Sterilization Refusal](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/safeguard/health-care-provision-sterilization-refusal/) - [Abortion Refusal](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/safeguard/health-care-provision-abortion-refusal/) - [General Conscience Protection](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/safeguard/health-care-provision-general-conscience-provision/) - [Immunization Requirement Exemption](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/safeguard/students-immunization-requirement-exemption/) - [Absentee Voting](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/safeguard/absentee-voting/) ## States - [Wyoming](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/wyoming/) - [Wisconsin](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/wisconsin/) - [West Virginia](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/west-virginia/) - [Washington](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/washington/) - [Virginia](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/virginia/) - [Vermont](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/vermont/) - [Utah](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/utah/) - [Texas](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/texas/) - [Tennessee](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/tennessee/) - [South Dakota](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/south-dakota/) - [South Carolina](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/south-carolina/) - [Rhode Island](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/rhode-island/) - [Pennsylvania](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/pennsylvania/) - [Oregon](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/oregon/) - [Oklahoma](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/oklahoma/) - [Ohio](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/ohio/) - [North Dakota](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/north-dakota/) - [North Carolina](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/north-carolina/) - [New York](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/new-york/) - [New Mexico](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/new-mexico/) - [New Jersey](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/new-jersey/) - [New Hampshire](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/new-hampshire/) - [Nevada](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/nevada/) - [Nebraska](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/nebraska/) - [Montana](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/montana/) - [Missouri](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/missouri/) - [Mississippi](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/mississippi/) - [Minnesota](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/minnesota/) - [Michigan](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/michigan/) - [Massachusetts](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/massachusetts/) - [Maryland](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/maryland/) - [Maine](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/maine/) - [Louisiana](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/louisiana/) - [Kentucky](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/kentucky/) - [Kansas](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/kansas/) - [Iowa](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/iowa/) - [Indiana](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/indiana/) - [Illinois](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/illinois/) - [Idaho](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/idaho/) - [Hawaii](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/hawaii/) - [Georgia](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/georgia/) - [Florida](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/florida/) - [Delaware](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/delaware/) - [Connecticut](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/connecticut/) - [Colorado](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/colorado/) - [California](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/california/) - [Arkansas](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/arkansas/) - [Arizona](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/arizona/) - [Alaska](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/alaska/) - [Alabama](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/alabama/) --- # Full Content --- title: "Cookie Policy" url: "https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/cookie-policy/" lang: "en-US" type: "page" description: "Please wait while the policy is loaded. If it does not load, please click here to view the policy." last_modified: "2026-08-12T18:45:30+00:00" --- # Cookie Policy Please wait while the policy is loaded. If it does not load, please [click here to view the policy](https://policies.termageddon.com/api/policy/ZVcxNlZUQTBWa3N3ZG05Tk5WRTlQUT09). --- --- title: "Terms of Service" url: "https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/terms-of-service/" lang: "en-US" type: "page" description: "Please wait while the policy is loaded. If it does not load, please click here to view the policy." last_modified: "2026-08-12T18:45:13+00:00" --- # Terms of Service Please wait while the policy is loaded. If it does not load, please [click here to view the policy](https://policies.termageddon.com/api/policy/ZG14ME1XMVBUR0p3ZURNMU5HYzlQUT09). --- --- title: "Privacy Policy" url: "https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/privacy-policy/" lang: "en-US" type: "page" description: "Please wait while the policy is loaded. If it does not load, please click here to view the policy." last_modified: "2026-08-12T18:44:29+00:00" --- # Privacy Policy Please wait while the policy is loaded. If it does not load, please [click here to view the policy](https://policies.termageddon.com/api/policy/U205RU9HUnRObUZFTXpWaVQzYzlQUT09). --- --- title: "Coming Tuesday, July 14 at 10:00 a.m. CDT" url: "https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/coming-tuesday-july-14-at-1000-a-m-cdt/" lang: "en-US" type: "page" description: "Coming Soon - Religious Liberty in the States" last_modified: "2026-07-13T19:55:24+00:00" custom_fields: iawp_total_views: 388 --- # Coming Tuesday, July 14 at 10:00 a.m. CDT Coming Soon – Religious Liberty in the States We’re putting the finishing touches on this year’s rankings, with updated data and new safeguards across all 50 states. It will be worth the wait. Launching Tuesday, July 14 10:00 AM CDT Thank you for your patience while we prepare the most complete picture of religious liberty in the states yet. © 2026 Religious Liberty in the States --- --- title: "Announcing RLS 2026’s #1 State: Arkansas" url: "https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/announcing-rls-2026s-1-state-arkansas/" lang: "en-US" type: "post" description: "Arkansas has claimed first place in the 2026 edition of the Religious Liberty in the States (RLS) index. After ranking sixth in 2025, the Natural State surged to the top this year, overtaking Florida, which dropped to third place. Arkansas" last_modified: "2026-07-14T13:36:58+00:00" categories: [2026 News, News] custom_fields: block_editor: 1 iawp_total_views: 214 --- # Announcing RLS 2026’s #1 State: Arkansas Arkansas has claimed first place in the 2026 edition of the Religious Liberty in the States (RLS) index. After ranking sixth in 2025, the Natural State surged to the top this year, overtaking Florida, which dropped to third place. [Arkansas](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/arkansas/) now protects 89 percent of the religious liberty [saf](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/safeguards/)[e](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/safeguards/)[guards](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/safeguards/) tracked in the 2026 RLS index. This remarkable achievement reflects the state’s substantial commitment to protecting religious freedom through a wide array of legal safeguards. Arkansas’s statutory framework helps ensure that individuals can live according to their faith in everyday life, including in health care, education, religious practice, family life, and the workplace. Arkansas’s score is 63 percentage points higher than that of the lowest-ranked state, [New York](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/new-york/), which protects just 26 percent of the safeguards measured in RLS 2026. Even among the states with the strongest religious liberty protections, Arkansas leads by a clear margin. Its score surpasses second-place [Tennessee](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/tennessee/) by four percentage points and third-place [Flo](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/florida/)[r](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/florida/)[ida](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/florida/) by 12 percentage points. ## Leading with New Protections Arkansas’s rise to first place is due in large part to legislation adopted in 2025. The state enacted [HB 1](https://arkleg.state.ar.us/Bills/Detail?id=hb1615&ddBienniumSession=2025%2F2025R)[615](https://arkleg.state.ar.us/Bills/Detail?id=hb1615&ddBienniumSession=2025%2F2025R), a law that protects individuals and institutions from being forced to participate in wedding ceremonies to which they have religious objections. What makes HB 1615 especially significant is that it [extends these protections to private businesses](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/safeguard/marriage-weddings-for-profit-business-nonparticipation/) such as florists, bakers, photographers, and other wedding vendors with sincerely held religious beliefs. Previously, [Mississippi](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/mississippi/) was the only state to offer this kind of protection to for-profit businesses. By adopting HB 1615, Arkansas became just the second state to protect private businesses from being forced to participate in wedding ceremonies that conflict with the religious convictions of their owners or employees. This safeguard matters because disputes over wedding participation have led to years of litigation in other states. For example, Aaron and Melissa Klein, owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa, declined in 2013 to design and create a custom cake for a same-sex wedding because of their Christian convictions. The State of Oregon punished them with a $135,000 penalty and issued a gag order against them. First Liberty represents the Kleins in this [case](https://firstliberty.org/cases/kleins/) that is still ongoing more than a decade later. A law like Arkansas’s would protect individuals and businesses from this kind of litigation. Arkansas’s success shows how quickly a state can improve its religious liberty protections through clear legislative action. Legislators in the 48 states without this protection should consider bills modeled on Arkansas’s statute to improve their state’s ranking. ## An Excellent Rating RLS 2026 also introduces a notable milestone. For the first time, two states have earned an “excellent” rating for protecting religious liberty. Arkansas leads the nation with 89 percent of the possible protections, followed by Tennessee with 85 percent. Last year, no state had adopted more than 80 percent of the laws considered in the index. This year, Arkansas and Tennessee both crossed that threshold, demonstrating that states can do more than lead the rankings. They can also achieve a higher absolute score by adopting broad and meaningful legal protections. ## What’s New in RLS 2026 The RLS project considered 29 protections in 2022, 34 protections in 2023, 39 protections in 2024, and 47 protections in 2025. This year, RLS added [three more items](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/how-rls-expanded-in-the-fifth-edition/), bringing the index to 50 legal protections grouped into 20 [safeguards](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/safeguards/). The new items added in RLS 2026 include medical conscience protections that permit individuals to decline to participate in genetic counseling, protections allowing individuals to opt out of joining labor unions because of religious objections, and protections against discrimination at public institutions of higher education because of religious commitments. Arkansas receives credit for all three newly tracked protections, helping push the state to the top of the 2026 rankings and contributing to its “excellent” rating. As the index continues to develop, states that actively adopt new protections can move up, while states that remain inactive may fall behind. ## Arkansas’s Future Despite Arkansas’s impressive performance, every state has room for improvement. Even Arkansas is missing seven of the specific protections RLS considers, a gap that could be remedied with just a few well-written statutes. If Arkansas wants to maintain its lead, it should consider adding these and other protections. But the state’s first-place finish shows that meaningful progress is possible when policymakers identify gaps in the law and act to protect the ability of all citizens to live according to their faith. Every state has the opportunity to strengthen its legal protections for religious liberty. The RLS index makes these opportunities transparent and actionable. Arkansas’s rise to first place should encourage state-level policymakers and citizens across the country to protect everyone’s ability to live according to their conscience. Want to see where your state ranks? Check out the RLS index [state ranking](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/states/) or [access the report](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/downloads/) to learn more. --- --- title: "Announcing RLS 2026’s Runner-Up State: Tennessee" url: "https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/announcing-rls-2026s-runner-up-state-tennessee/" lang: "en-US" type: "post" description: "Tennessee has made major strides in protecting religious liberty, rising from tenth place in 2025 to second place in the 2026 Religious Liberty in the States (RLS) index. The Volunteer State now protects 85 percent of the religious liberty safeguards" last_modified: "2026-07-14T13:37:05+00:00" categories: [2026 News, News] custom_fields: block_editor: 1 iawp_total_views: 56 --- # Announcing RLS 2026’s Runner-Up State: Tennessee Tennessee has made major strides in protecting religious liberty, rising from tenth place in 2025 to second place in the 2026 Religious Liberty in the States (RLS) index. The Volunteer State now protects 85 percent of the religious liberty [safeguards](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/safeguards/) tracked in RLS 2026. That score makes [Tennessee](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/tennessee/) one of only two states to earn an “excellent” rating in this year’s index, along with first-place [Arkansas](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/arkansas/). Tennessee’s rise is due in large part to legislation adopted in 2025. By passing the [Medical Ethics Defense Act](https://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default?BillNumber=SB0955&ga=114), Tennessee strengthened protections for healthcare workers, institutions, and payers who have conscience objections to participating in certain medical procedures. ## General Medical Conscience Protection RLS gives equal weight to each of its 20 [safeguards](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/safeguards/), but some safeguards offer especially significant protection for religious liberty. [Religious Freedom Restoration Acts](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/safeguard/religious-freedom-restoration-act/) provide the broadest protection, but the next most important protection RLS considers is whether a state has a [general medical conscience protection](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/safeguard/health-care-provision-general-conscience-provision/). Many states protect medical professionals from being forced to participate in abortions if they have religious objections. But a strong general medical conscience law goes further, protecting a wide range of individuals and institutions from being forced to participate in multiple medical procedures, including abortion, sterilization, and contraception, if they have religious objections. Tennessee’s Medical Ethics Defense Act provides this kind of protection. The law states that healthcare providers “must not be required to participate in or pay for a healthcare procedure, treatment, or service that violates the conscience of the healthcare provider.” It also protects healthcare providers from being penalized for exercising speech protected by the First Amendment. By adopting this important safeguard, Tennessee advanced from tenth to second place in the RLS rankings and now protects 85 percent of the items considered in the index. ## An Excellent Rating Tennessee’s rise is especially notable because it is not only a high-ranking state. It is also one of only two states to earn an “excellent” rating in RLS 2026. In RLS 2025, no state had adopted more than 80 percent of the laws considered in the index. In RLS 2026, Tennessee crossed that threshold with a score of 85 percent. This shows how quickly a state can improve its overall score by adopting broad and meaningful legal protections. Tennessee’s performance is also part of a broader pattern. States can improve their RLS scores by passing new legislation and by having existing laws in place when new safeguards are added to the index. Tennessee’s ranking shows the importance of both. Tennessee’s rise is especially notable when compared with other states that might be expected to perform well. Tennessee leads [Alabama](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/alabama/) by roughly 46 percentage points, [Texas](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/texas/) by about 42 percentage points, and [Oklahoma](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/oklahoma/) by nearly 35 percentage points. These differences show that a strong religious liberty ranking is not automatic. States improve when policymakers identify gaps in the law and adopt concrete protections for religious exercise and freedom of conscience. ## Tennessee’s Future All states have room for improvement, including Tennessee. Despite its second-place standing, the Volunteer State could still add additional protections tracked by RLS, especially in the areas of economic life, religious life, and family and education. By doing so, it may challenge Arkansas for the top spot in future years. Still, Tennessee’s 2026 ranking should encourage other states to strengthen protections for people of all faiths. The RLS index gives legislators and citizens a clear starting point for identifying gaps in state law and considering proven models from other states. Where does your state rank? Check out the RLS index [state ranking](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/states/) or [access the report](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/downloads/) to learn more. --- --- title: "Why Florida Fell to #3: Understanding the Shift in RLS 2026" url: "https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/why-florida-fell-to-3-understanding-the-shift-in-rls-2026/" lang: "en-US" type: "post" description: "In recent years, Florida has demonstrated a strong commitment to protecting religious liberty. The Sunshine State ranked second in the RLS 2024 index and rose to first place in RLS 2025. This year, Florida remains near the top of the" last_modified: "2026-07-14T13:37:09+00:00" categories: [2026 News, News] custom_fields: block_editor: 1 iawp_total_views: 125 --- # Why Florida Fell to #3: Understanding the Shift in RLS 2026 In recent years, Florida has demonstrated a strong commitment to protecting religious liberty. The Sunshine State ranked second in the RLS 2024 index and rose to first place in RLS 2025. This year, Florida remains near the top of the rankings, but it has moved to third place behind [Arkansas](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/arkansas/) and [Tennessee](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/tennessee/). That shift is noteworthy, but it should be understood carefully. [Florida](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/wp-content/media/Florida.jpg) did not lose religious liberty protections. In fact, its score increased slightly, from 74.6 percent in RLS 2025 to 76.9 percent in RLS 2026. But because RLS is a dynamic and comparative index, Florida’s rank changed as other states adopted new protections and moved ahead. ## Why the Rankings Shifted Florida was the reigning champion in the 2025 RLS index in part because it had many of the safeguards measured that year. For example, Florida was one of several states that enacted laws after the COVID-19 pandemic to protect houses of worship from government-ordered closures. But RLS changes as states change. Each year, the index is updated to reflect additional areas where states can protect religious liberty. In 2026, Arkansas and Tennessee moved ahead of Florida because they adopted, or already had, key protections that Florida does not yet have. Florida still holds a high position overall, but its shift from first to third illustrates how quickly rankings can change when other states continue to adopt new protections. ## What Changed in RLS 2026 The RLS project considered 29 protections in 2022, 34 protections in 2023, 39 protections in 2024, and 47 protections in 2025. This year, RLS added three more items, bringing the index to 50 legal protections grouped into 20 [safeguards](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/safeguards/). The new items added in RLS 2026 include medical conscience protections that permit individuals to decline to participate in genetic counseling, protections allowing individuals to opt out of joining labor unions because of religious objections, and protections against discrimination at public institutions of higher education because of religious commitments. These additions help explain why the rankings changed. States can improve their scores by passing new legislation. They can also benefit when they already have protections in place that are added to the index. Conversely, states that remain inactive may fall in the rankings even if they have not lost any existing protections. This is what happened to one-time champion [Illinois](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/illinois/), which has now fallen to fifth place as other states adopted new protections and the index expanded. Florida receives credit for two of the three new items added to RLS 2026: protections related to genetic counseling and religious objections to joining labor unions. However, it does not yet receive credit for equal access protections for college students. Arkansas and Tennessee had all three newly tracked protections, which helped them move ahead in this year’s rankings. ## Where Florida Can Improve Florida’s third-place ranking is still impressive, but every state has room for improvement. If Florida wants to reclaim the top spot, lawmakers should consider adding several protections currently tracked by RLS. These include equal access protections for college students, the one newly added 2026 item Florida does not yet have. Florida could also add protections for public officials who decline to participate in weddings because of religious objections, among other areas. These gaps show that even leading states have opportunities to strengthen their protections. Arkansas and Tennessee demonstrate how quickly states can move ahead when they adopt significant new religious liberty safeguards. ## Still a National Leader Florida remains a national leader in protecting religious liberty. Its high score reflects important laws adopted in recent years, including protections for houses of worship, conscience protections, religious exemptions, and other statutory safeguards. The state’s movement from first to third should not be viewed as a loss of religious liberty for Floridians. Rather, it is a reminder that the RLS index measures ongoing legislative activity across all 50 states. When one state pauses, another may move ahead. Florida has led before, and it can lead again. With renewed attention to emerging areas of concern, the Sunshine State can continue strengthening protections for people of all faiths. Where does your [state rank](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/states/), and how has its status changed over time? Check out the RLS index or [download the report](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/downloads/) to learn more. --- --- title: "How RLS Expanded in the Fifth Edition" url: "https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/how-rls-expanded-in-the-fifth-edition/" lang: "en-US" type: "post" description: "The Religious Liberty in the States (RLS) index is designed to measure how well each state protects religious liberty through law. Since its launch in 2022, RLS has expanded each year to reflect additional areas where states can protect the" last_modified: "2026-07-14T13:37:15+00:00" categories: [2026 News, News] custom_fields: block_editor: 1 iawp_total_views: 30 --- # How RLS Expanded in the Fifth Edition The Religious Liberty in the States (RLS) index is designed to measure how well each state protects religious liberty through law. Since its launch in 2022, RLS has expanded each year to reflect additional areas where states can protect the free exercise of religion. In its fifth edition, RLS now measures 50 legal protections across 20 [safeguards](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/safeguards/). This expanded index gives citizens, legislators, and researchers a clearer picture of where states excel, where they fall short, and how they can continue strengthening protections for people of all faiths. ## Items and Safeguards RLS tracks religious liberty protections through specific legal “items” and broader “safeguards.” Items are individual protections found in state law. Safeguards are broader categories that group related items together. For example, RLS considers whether states protect healthcare workers from being forced to participate in medical procedures that violate their religious convictions. It also considers whether states protect religious organizations, students, families, public officials, and private citizens from unnecessary government interference or discrimination. Together, these items and safeguards help show how religious liberty is protected in everyday life, including in health care, education, religious practice, family life, and the workplace. The original RLS 2022 edition [covered](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/rls-2022-archive/) 29 items within 11 safeguards. In 2023, RLS [expanded](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/rls-2023-archive/) to 34 items and 14 safeguards. In 2024, the index [grew](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/rls-2024-archive/) to 39 items and 16 safeguards. In 2025, RLS [included](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/rls-2025-archive/) 47 items across 20 safeguards. This year, RLS added three more items, bringing the total to 50 legal protections across the same 20 safeguards. Learn more about the [safeguards here](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/safeguards/). ## What Changed in RLS 2026 The three new items added in RLS 2026 address religious liberty in health care, economic life, and higher education: - Medical conscience protections that allow individuals to decline participation in genetic counseling because of religious objections - Protections allowing workers to opt out of joining labor unions because of religious objections - Equal access protections for people at public institutions of higher education because of their religious commitments These additions reflect the ongoing purpose of RLS: to measure how states protect religious liberty not only in houses of worship, but also in the many areas of life where citizens may need to act according to conscience. ## How Expansion Affects State Scores Because RLS is a dynamic index, state scores can change from year to year for several reasons. A state may improve because it passes new legislation. A state may also improve because it already has a legal protection in place when RLS begins tracking that item. Conversely, states that remain inactive may fall in the rankings as other states adopt new protections or as the index expands. Year-to-year comparisons should be read carefully, because a lower ranking does not always mean a state has lost religious liberty protections. It may mean that other states have moved ahead by adopting new safeguards. It may also mean that the index now measures protections that the state has not yet adopted. This year, [Arkansas](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/arkansas/) and [Tennessee](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/tennessee/) rank first and second, with scores of 89 percent and 85 percent respectively. Both states earned an “excellent” rating, meaning that they scored above 80 percent, marking the first time any state has crossed that threshold in RLS. Arkansas [rose](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/announcing-rls-2026s-1-state-arkansas/) after adopting a law which protects a wide range of individuals and institutions from being forced to participate in wedding ceremonies to which they have religious objections. Tennessee [rose](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/announcing-rls-2026s-runner-up-state-tennessee/) after adopting a strong [general medical conscience protection](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/safeguard/health-care-provision-general-conscience-provision/). Other states also improved because of recent legislative action. [Idaho](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/idaho/) advanced after passing a general conscience law. [Georgia](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/georgia/) and [Wyoming](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/wyoming/) deserve praise for adopting [Religious Freedom Restoration Acts](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/safeguard/religious-freedom-restoration-act/) in 2025. These examples show that states can make meaningful progress when lawmakers identify gaps in religious liberty protections at the state level and act to address them. ## What the 2026 Results Show The expanded index also shows how much room remains for improvement. Even as leading states have strengthened their protections, 34 states are doing less than half of what they could be doing to protect religious liberty. Half of the states have adopted less than 40 percent of the safeguards measured by the index. [New York](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/new-york/) returned to last place for the first time since 2022, largely because it has remained stagnant while other states have acted. At the same time, RLS shows that progress is possible. Since 2022, states such as [Montana](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/montana/), [South Carolina](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/south-carolina/), Tennessee, Arkansas, and Idaho have passed significant laws to better protect religious liberty. Over that same period, Tennessee, South Carolina, and Montana have shown the greatest improvement. ## How to Compare Scores Across Years As RLS continues to expand, readers should avoid treating every year-to-year comparison as a simple apples-to-apples measure. A state’s score may change because it passed new legislation, because newly tracked protections were already in place, because other states moved ahead, or because the index has been refined. Any errors that are discovered in previous versions of the index are documented and [published here](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/errata/). As new questions arise in state law and public life, religious liberty protections will continue to develop, and RLS will continue to grow. The study is designed to reflect how well states protect religious liberty today while also giving citizens and legislators clear examples of how their states can improve. The fifth edition of RLS offers the most comprehensive picture yet of religious liberty protections across the states. It also reinforces one of the central lessons of the project—every state has room to improve. Compare state scores across the years or [download the full RLS 2026 report](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/downloads/) to learn more. --- --- title: "Explore the Index with AI" url: "https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/ai/" lang: "en-US" type: "page" description: "Title You can now ask AI assistants about the Religious Liberty in the States index and get answers drawn straight from the published data. Look up how a single state ranks, or ask a broad, open-ended question that spans the" last_modified: "2026-07-13T15:51:15+00:00" custom_fields: iawp_total_views: 19 --- # Explore the Index with AI # Title You can now ask AI assistants about the Religious Liberty in the States index and get answers drawn straight from the published data. Look up how a single state ranks, or ask a broad, open-ended question that spans the entire index. Because the assistant can draw on all 50 states, every safeguard, and every year from 2022 on, it can work through the full dataset to answer, not just return a single number. The data includes a link to every state and safeguard page on this site, so you can trace any figure back to its source. ![Chatgpt-logo](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/wp-content/media/Chatgpt-logo.svg) ## RLS 2026 in ChatGPT Our custom GPT, **Religious Liberty in the States**, is ready to use. **[Click here to access it directly](https://chatgpt.com/g/g-6a5158518dd88191a0ccf0cf47a1f435-religious-liberty-in-the-states)** Or you can add the custom GPT to **your ChatGPT account:** - Open ChatGPT (chatgpt.com) and click **GPTs** in the left column. - Search for **Religious Liberty in the States** in the public GPT search. - The first time it looks something up, ChatGPT will ask you to allow the connection – choose **Allow** and you’re set. - **Start** asking questions! ![Claude_AI_logo](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/wp-content/media/Claude_AI_logo.svg) ## RLS 2026 in Claude In Claude, you can add the index as a custom connector_ (available on Claude plans that support connectors)_. - In Claude (claude.ai), go to **Settings → Connectors** and click **Add custom connector**. - Paste this address: https://mcp.religiouslibertyinthestates.com/mcpCopy - Click **Add**. - When Claude asks to use the connector, **allow it.** - Start a conversation and **ask** about the index. ## What you can ask ### Quick lookups - How does my state rank on religious liberty? - Which states have a Religious Freedom Restoration Act? - What does a specific safeguard measure, and which states protect it? ### Bigger questions - Which states improved the most between 2022 and 2025, and what drove the change? - Which safeguards are the most, and least, common across the country? - Which states are strong on healthcare conscience protections but weak on school-related ones? - Rank the states by how many safeguards they fully protect. - How has the national average changed over time, and which states moved it the most? ### Follow-ups Ask follow-up questions the same way you would with any assistant. It keeps the context, so you can start broad and then drill into a single state, safeguard, or year. Every answer is based on the official index, and the data carries a link to each state and safeguard page on this site, so you can trace a figure back to its source. --- --- title: "2026 Report" url: "https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/downloads/2026-report/" lang: "en-US" type: "page" description: "Report Religious Liberty in the States 2026 The report (PDF) includes an overview of what's new this year, complete state rankings, and helpful tables and figures.Click to download PDF" last_modified: "2026-07-14T13:13:39+00:00" custom_fields: iawp_total_views: 8 --- # 2026 Report [ ![Screenshot](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/wp-content/media/RLS_2026_Cover.jpg) Report ## Religious Liberty in the States 2026 The report (PDF) includes an overview of what’s new this year, complete state rankings, and helpful tables and figures.**Click to download PDF**](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/Religious_Liberty_in_the_States_Report-2026.pdf) --- --- title: "RLS 2025 Archive" url: "https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/rls-2025-archive/" lang: "en-US" type: "page" description: "Title View the Full RLS 2025 Website Click a State to Download its Scorecard 1. Florida 2. Montana 3. Illinois 4. Ohio 5. Mississippi 6. Arkansas 7. South Carolina 8. Washington 9. Utah 10. Tennessee 11. Arizona 12. Maryland 13." last_modified: "2026-07-14T13:20:33+00:00" custom_fields: iawp_total_views: 21 --- # RLS 2025 Archive # Title [ ![rls2025-map](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/wp-content/media/rls2025-map-1200x773.png) ](https://2024.religiouslibertyinthestates.com) [ View the Full RLS 2025 Website ](https://2025.religiouslibertyinthestates.com) ## Click a State to Download its Scorecard 1. [Florida](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Florida-Scorecard-2025.pdf) 2. [Montana](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Montana-Scorecard-2025.pdf) 3. [Illinois](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Illinois-Scorecard-2025.pdf) 4. [Ohio](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Ohio-Scorecard-2025.pdf) 5. [Mississippi](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Mississippi-Scorecard-2025.pdf) 6. [Arkansas](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Arkansas-Scorecard-2025.pdf) 7. [South Carolina](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-South-Carolina-Scorecard-2025.pdf) 8. [Washington](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Washington-Scorecard-2025.pdf) 9. [Utah](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Utah-Scorecard-2025.pdf) 10. [Tennessee](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Tennessee-Scorecard-2025.pdf) 11. [Arizona](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Arizona-Scorecard-2025.pdf) 12. [Maryland](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Maryland-Scorecard-2025.pdf) 13. [Idaho](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Idaho-Scorecard-2025.pdf) 14. [Delaware](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Delaware-Scorecard-2025.pdf) 15. [Hawaii](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Hawaii-Scorecard-2025.pdf) 16. [North Dakota](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-North-Dakota-Scorecard-2025.pdf) 17. [Alabama](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Alabama-Scorecard-2025.pdf) 18. [Minnesota](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Minnesota-Scorecard-2025.pdf) 19. [Maine](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Maine-Scorecard-2025.pdf) 20. [Rhode Island](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Rhode-Island-Scorecard-2025.pdf) 21. [Kentucky](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Kentucky-Scorecard-2025.pdf) 22. [Oklahoma](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Oklahoma-Scorecard-2025.pdf) 23. [Louisiana](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Louisiana-Scorecard-2025.pdf) 24. [Missouri](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Missouri-Scorecard-2025.pdf) 25. [Connecticut](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Connecticut-Scorecard-2025.pdf) 26. [New Mexico](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-New-Mexico-Scorecard-2025.pdf) 27. [New Jersey](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-New-Jersey-Scorecard-2025.pdf) 28. [Pennsylvania](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Pennsylvania-Scorecard-2025.pdf) 29. [Massachusetts](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Massachusetts-Scorecard-2025.pdf) 30. [Oregon](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Oregon-Scorecard-2025.pdf) 31. [Texas](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Texas-Scorecard-2025.pdf) 32. [Kansas](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Kansas-Scorecard-2025.pdf) 33. [Iowa](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Iowa-Scorecard-2025.pdf) 34. [Colorado](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Colorado-Scorecard-2025.pdf) 35. [Virginia](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Virginia-Scorecard-2025.pdf) 36. [Georgia](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Georgia-Scorecard-2025.pdf) 37. [Alaska](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Alaska-Scorecard-2025.pdf) 38. [Nevada](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Nevada-Scorecard-2025.pdf) 39. [Indiana](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Indiana-Scorecard-2025.pdf) 40. [New Hampshire](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-New-Hampshire-Scorecard-2025.pdf) 41. [Wisconsin](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Wisconsin-Scorecard-2025.pdf) 42. [South Dakota](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-South-Dakota-Scorecard-2025.pdf) 43. [California](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-California-Scorecard-2025.pdf) 44. [North Carolina](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-North-Carolina-Scorecard-2025.pdf) 45. [New York](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-New-York-Scorecard-2025.pdf) 46. [Vermont](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Vermont-Scorecard-2025.pdf) 47. [Nebraska](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Nebraska-Scorecard-2025.pdf) 48. [Michigan](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Michigan-Scorecard-2025.pdf) 49. [Wyoming](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Wyoming-Scorecard-2025.pdf) 50. [West Virginia](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-West-Virginia-Scorecard-2025.pdf) [ ![RLS 2025 Cover](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/wp-content/media/RLS-2025-Cover-618x800.jpg) Report ## Religious Liberty in the States The report (PDF) includes an overview of what’s new this year, complete state rankings, and helpful tables and figures.**Click to download PDF** ](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/Religious_Liberty_in_the_States_Report-2025.pdf) [ ![2025_RLS-Rankings-Table_one-pager](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/wp-content/media/2025_RLS-Rankings-Table_one-pager-618x800.jpg) Rankings ## 2025 State Rankings This downloadable PDF lists all 50 states ranked by their overall score on a single page for easy reference.**Click to download PDF** ](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/2025_RLS-Rankings-Table_one-pager.pdf) [ ![RLS 2025 Cover](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/wp-content/media/RLS-2025-Cover-618x800.jpg) Dataset ## Religious Liberty in the States This dataset (.xlsx) contains the data used to construct the index and rankings, along with research notes and links to state laws. It also includes data from the previous years of the index.**Click to download XLSX** ](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/Religious_Liberty_in_the_States_Dataset-2025.xlsx) --- --- title: "2026 Dataset" url: "https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/downloads/2026-dataset/" lang: "en-US" type: "page" description: "Dataset Religious Liberty in the States 2026 This dataset (.xlsx) contains the data used to construct the index and rankings, along with research notes and links to state laws. It also includes data from the previous years of the index.Click" last_modified: "2026-07-14T13:12:46+00:00" custom_fields: iawp_total_views: 4 --- # 2026 Dataset [ ![RLS2026-cover](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/wp-content/media/RLS2026-cover.jpg) Dataset ## Religious Liberty in the States 2026 This dataset (.xlsx) contains the data used to construct the index and rankings, along with research notes and links to state laws. It also includes data from the previous years of the index.**Click to download XLSX** ](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/Religious_Liberty_in_the_States_Dataset-2026.xlsx) --- --- title: "Announcing RLS 2025’s #1 State: Florida" url: "https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/announcing-rls-2025s-1-state-florida/" lang: "en-US" type: "post" description: "Florida has claimed first place in the 2025 edition of the Religious Liberty in the States (RLS) index. After being in second place in 2024, the state has improved again this year, overtaking the two-time defending leader, Illinois, which dropped" last_modified: "2026-07-14T14:00:23+00:00" categories: [News] custom_fields: iawp_total_views: 52 --- # Announcing RLS 2025’s #1 State: Florida Florida has claimed first place in the 2025 edition of the Religious Liberty in the States (RLS) index. After being in second place in 2024, the state has improved again this year, overtaking the two-time defending leader, Illinois, which dropped to third place. The Sunshine State [protects](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/florida/) 75 percent of the religious liberty safeguards tracked in the 2025 RLS index. This remarkable achievement reflects the state’s substantial commitment to protecting religious freedom through a wide array of legal safeguards. Florida’s statutory framework ensures that individuals can freely practice their faith in everyday life—whether in health care, education, family matters, or employment—without undue government interference. Its impressive showing includes newly adopted protections that enhance the ability of citizens to act according to their deeply held beliefs, making Florida an exemplar for other states seeking to strengthen religious liberty protections. Florida’s score is nearly four times higher than that of the lowest-ranked state, [West Virginia](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/west-virginia/), which earned a score of just 20 percent. Even among the states with the best religious liberty protections as measured in the 2025 index, Florida leads by a decent margin; its score surpasses second-place [Montana](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/montana/) by nearly five percentage points (70 percent) and third-place [Illinois](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/illinois/) by more than six percentage points (69 percent). ## Leading with New Safeguards The RLS 2025 report expanded its index by introducing eight items (for a total of forty-seven) and four safeguards (for a total of twenty), reflecting the continued evolution of the measure of  religious liberty protections across the states. Florida stood out by already having several of these new [safeguards](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/safeguards/) in place, contributing to its rise to the top of the rankings. Notably, Florida was one of the states that acted quickly to protect houses of worship from government-mandated closures. This protection emerged in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, as states recognized the need to ensure that religious gatherings are not treated more restrictively than comparable secular activities. Eighteen states passed such statutes, and Florida was among them. This contributed to Florida’s rise to first place in the RLS rankings, setting it apart from states like Illinois, which lacks this protection. However, it’s worth noting that Florida only has a score of about 75 percent, meaning there are 25 percent of the protections that Floridians do not have in place. For instance, the state has not passed a provision on religious discrimination in foster parent eligibility, there are no protections for the ceremonial use of alcohol by minors (such as communion), and the state does not protect private businesses who want to decline participation in certain wedding ceremonies that conflict with their beliefs. If Florida wants to remain in the lead, it should consider adding these and other safeguards. ## Florida’s Future Despite Florida’s impressive performance, there are opportunities for improvement. But Florida’s success in protecting religious liberty is proof that with political will and clear legislative action, significant progress is possible and impactful. Every state has the opportunity to strengthen its legal protections for religious liberty. The RLS index makes these opportunities transparent and actionable. Florida’s first-place finish should inspire state-level policymakers and citizens in every state to protect everyone’s ability to live according to their faith. Want to see where your state ranks? Check out the RLS index state ranking or access the report to learn more. --- --- title: "Announcing RLS 2025’s Runner-Up State: Montana" url: "https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/announcing-rls-2025s-runner-up-state-montana/" lang: "en-US" type: "post" description: "Montana has successfully climbed the leaderboard in this year’s Religious Liberty in the States (RLS) index, ranking second by protecting 71 percent of the religious safeguards tracked in the 2025 index. Since placing 24th with a score of 40 percent" last_modified: "2026-07-14T14:00:24+00:00" categories: [News] custom_fields: iawp_total_views: 16 --- # Announcing RLS 2025’s Runner-Up State: Montana Montana has successfully [climbed](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/montana/) the leaderboard in this year’s Religious Liberty in the States (RLS) index, ranking second by protecting 71 percent of the religious safeguards tracked in the 2025 index. Since placing 24th with a score of 40 percent in the inaugural 2022 RLS report, Big Sky Country has continually climbed in the rankings. In 2023, Montana ranked 20th (46 percent), and by 2024, it made an impressive leap to 3rd place (66 percent). Montana’s 30.8 percent increase since 2022 makes it the most improved state throughout the RLS project. The Treasure State’s dramatic rise illustrates the two primary ways a state’s RLS score can increase year over year: by passing new legislation and by already having relevant laws in place when new safeguards are added to the index. ## Expanded Health Care Conscience Protections Montana’s lawmakers passed [House Bill 303](https://archive.legmt.gov/bills/2023/billhtml/HB0303.htm), known as the Medical Ethics and Diversity Act, which took effect in October 2023. This legislation marks a significant advancement in the state’s legal protections for religious liberty, particularly in the area of healthcare. HB 303 safeguards the conscience rights of medical practitioners, health care institutions, and payers by allowing them to decline participation in services such as abortion, sterilization, euthanasia, and other procedures that violate their sincerely held religious or moral beliefs. This law is especially consequential for Montana’s score in the 2025 Religious Liberty in the States (RLS) index because health care conscience protections are one of the most heavily weighted safeguard categories in the index. The 2025 report includes 47 legal protections grouped into 20 safeguards, and among them, health-care related items account for a substantial portion. By enacting HB 303, Montana went from having relatively limited protections in this area to earning one of the highest possible scores for health care conscience laws. ## Religious Liberty in Daily Life Montana [permits](https://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/title_0450/chapter_0050/part_0060/section_0240/0450-0050-0060-0240.html) minors to consume alcohol as part of a religious ceremony (such as communion) without legal penalty. This safeguard ensures that clergy and congregations can observe religious rites involving sacramental wine without fear of criminal liability, and it reflects respect for long-standing religious traditions across faith communities. The state also has several important protections that illustrate how religious liberty extends beyond the walls of houses of worship and into the broader cultural, educational, and familial life of its residents. For example, the state [allows](https://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/title_0200/chapter_0050/part_0040/section_0050/0200-0050-0040-0050.html) parents to exempt their children from immunization requirements on religious grounds. This protection affirms the right of families to make medical decisions for their children in alignment with their religious convictions. It is also one of six states that ensures that current or prospective foster parents may not be forced to affirm, accept, or support any government policy regarding sexual orientation or gender identity that conflicts with the parent’s sincerely held religious or moral beliefs. ## Looking Ahead Montana’s success story should serve as a roadmap for states that want to strengthen protections for religious believers of all kinds. Whether policymakers are working to support health care workers, clergy, students, or families, the RLS index highlights actionable areas for reform. With Montana securing the second-place spot, we will see whether it can surpass Florida for its first-place ranking in next year’s report. Want to see where your state ranks? Check out the RLS index state ranking or access the report to learn more. --- --- title: "Why Illinois Fell to #3: Understanding the Shift in RLS 2025" url: "https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/why-illinois-fell-to-3-understanding-the-shift-in-rls-2025/" lang: "en-US" type: "post" description: "Illinois led the nation in religious liberty protections for two years in a row, 2023 and 2024, but this year there is a new leader. In 2023, the state protected 85 percent of the safeguards the Religious Liberty in the" last_modified: "2026-07-14T14:00:26+00:00" categories: [News] custom_fields: iawp_total_views: 35 --- # Why Illinois Fell to #3: Understanding the Shift in RLS 2025 Illinois led the nation in religious liberty protections for two years in a row, 2023 and 2024, but this year there is a new leader. In 2023, the state protected 85 percent of the [safeguards](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/safeguards/) the Religious Liberty in the States (RLS) report tracked, claiming the first-place position from the previous champion, Mississippi. But in the 2025 index, Illinois has slipped to third place with a score of 69 percent. While Illinois remains a national leader in safeguarding the free exercise of religion, its fall from the top spot is a significant shift, especially as Florida, now in first with a score of 75 percent, and Montana, now in second at 70 percent, surged ahead. The problem? Illinois has not continued to pass new laws protecting religious liberty, while other states have moved forward. ## A Halt in Progress Illinois held first place in 2023 by scoring well on all existing and newly introduced safeguards at the time. It was a standout example of how an inclusive legal framework covering health-care conscience rights, religious exemptions in education, and ceremonial protections can position a state as a model for religious liberty. However, in the 2025 RLS index, the number of legal protections measured grew again, expanding from thirty-four items in 2023 to forty-seven items across twenty safeguards. These new areas included additional protections related to religious expression in health care, family life, and economic life. Last year, while the Land of Lincoln was holding on to its top spot, our study [cautioned](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/announcing-rls-2024s-1-state-illinois/) that the state may have been resting on its laurels, saying: “If Illinois wishes to stay at the top of the rankings in future years, it should consider implementing this safeguard, as well as any others it lacks, because many other states are actively considering legislation to improve their religious liberty protections.” State lawmakers did not adopt new legislation. As a result, its score remained largely static while other states passed new laws and increased their scores significantly. It is important to note that Illinoisans didn’t lose protections. The state’s legal framework is still among the strongest in the country. But RLS is a comparative index, and in 2025, other states have advanced. In a landscape where other states are expanding protections for religious exercise, standing still is effectively the same as falling behind. ## Where Illinois Can Improve Despite Illinois’s strong overall performance in the 2025 RLS index, the state still lacks critical safeguards that significantly limit its ability to offer comprehensive protections for religious liberty. Most notably, Illinois has not enacted a statute to protect houses of worship from government-ordered closures during public emergencies. This safeguard, which gained prominence in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, ensures that religious gatherings are not treated more restrictively than comparable secular activities. Eighteen states—including top-ranking Florida and Montana—have already passed such laws, and Illinois’s absence in this area represents a clear and visible deficiency. The 2025 index also introduced several new safeguards, each representing emerging areas of concern for religious liberty in professional and social life, and Illinois is notably missing a few of them. Among these is a counselor conscience protection, which would allow mental health professionals to decline services that violate their religious or moral convictions. Another ensures that current or prospective foster parents may not be forced to affirm, accept, or support any government policy regarding sexual orientation or gender identity that conflicts with the parent’s sincerely held religious or moral beliefs. While these areas are more recent additions to the legal landscape, they reflect the evolving complexity of religious liberty protections in modern society. By enacting legislation in these areas, Illinois would not only improve its RLS score but also signal its commitment to upholding the free exercise of religion in new and challenging contexts. ## An Opportunity to Lead Again Illinois still deserves credit for its long-standing commitment to religious liberty. Its 2021 legislation allowing school absences for religious observance was significant, and its Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) remains one of the strongest in the nation. Illinois’ fall in the 2025 RLS index does not have to be seen as a setback; rather, it can serve as a reminder that protecting religious liberty requires ongoing legislative engagement. Illinois has led before, and with renewed attention and additional protections, it can lead again. Find out where your state ranks and how its ranking has changed over time by checking out the RLS index state ranking or access the report to learn more. --- --- title: "Home" url: "https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/" lang: "en-US" type: "page" description: "Download the Report and Data Our Downloads page provides free access to all downloadable materials, including our 2026 report, complete dataset, and 50 user-friendly state scorecards.Download Resources Download the 2026 State Rankings This downloadable PDF lists all 50 states ranked" last_modified: "2026-07-14T14:23:28+00:00" custom_fields: iawp_total_views: 10337 --- # Home 2026 Explore the Religious Liberty in the States rankings by selecting states from the map or list. By Map Toggle By List [ ](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/indiana/) [ ](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/south-carolina/) [ ](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/louisiana/) [ ](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/montana/) [ ](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/west-virginia/) [ ](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/new-jersey/) [ ](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/vermont/) [ ](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/illinois/) [ ](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/minnesota/) [ ](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/utah/) [ ](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/tennessee/) [ ](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/new-mexico/) [ ](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/massachusetts/) [ ](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/pennsylvania/) [ ](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/georgia/) [ ](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/iowa/) [ ](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/nevada/) [ ](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/wyoming/) [ ](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/arkansas/) [ ](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/kansas/) [ ](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/texas/) [ ](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/idaho/) [ ](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/maine/) [ ](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/virginia/) [ ](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/florida/) [ ](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/wisconsin/) [ ](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/california/) [ ](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/south-dakota/) [ ](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/ohio/) [ ](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/missouri/) [ ](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/delaware/) [ ](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/rhode-island/) [ ](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/new-york/) [ ](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/alabama/) [ ](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/north-dakota/) [ ](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/washington/) [ ](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/colorado/) [ ](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/mississippi/) [ ](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/arizona/) [ ](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/maryland/) [ ](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/new-hampshire/) [ ](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/connecticut/) [ ](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/north-carolina/) [ ](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/michigan/) [ ](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/oregon/) [ ](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/nebraska/) [ ](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/oklahoma/) [ ](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/kentucky/) [ ](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/alaska/) [ ](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/hawaii/) States are ranked in order of detailed religious liberty criteria: 1-50 Additional information on each state, including a printable scorecard (PDF), is available by clicking on a state. more religious freedom Ranks #1-10 Ranks #11-20 Ranks #21-30 Ranks #31-40 Ranks #41-50 Rank # 1-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 Ranking Order Alphabetical Order 2026 Religious Liberty Rankings - [Alabama](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/alabama/) - [Alaska](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/alaska/) - [Arizona](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/arizona/) - [Arkansas](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/arkansas/) - [California](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/california/) - [Colorado](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/colorado/) - [Connecticut](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/connecticut/) - [Delaware](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/delaware/) - [Florida](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/florida/) - [Georgia](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/georgia/) - [Hawaii](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/hawaii/) - [Idaho](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/idaho/) - [Illinois](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/illinois/) - [Indiana](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/indiana/) - [Iowa](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/iowa/) - [Kansas](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/kansas/) - [Kentucky](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/kentucky/) - [Louisiana](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/louisiana/) - [Maine](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/maine/) - [Maryland](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/maryland/) - [Massachusetts](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/massachusetts/) - [Michigan](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/michigan/) - [Minnesota](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/minnesota/) - [Mississippi](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/mississippi/) - [Missouri](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/missouri/) - [Montana](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/montana/) - [Nebraska](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/nebraska/) - [Nevada](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/nevada/) - [New Hampshire](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/new-hampshire/) - [New Jersey](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/new-jersey/) - [New Mexico](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/new-mexico/) - [New York](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/new-york/) - [North Carolina](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/north-carolina/) - [North Dakota](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/north-dakota/) - [Ohio](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/ohio/) - [Oklahoma](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/oklahoma/) - [Oregon](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/oregon/) - [Pennsylvania](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/pennsylvania/) - [Rhode Island](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/rhode-island/) - [South Carolina](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/south-carolina/) - [South Dakota](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/south-dakota/) - [Tennessee](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/tennessee/) - [Texas](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/texas/) - [Utah](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/utah/) - [Vermont](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/vermont/) - [Virginia](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/virginia/) - [Washington](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/washington/) - [West Virginia](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/west-virginia/) - [Wisconsin](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/wisconsin/) - [Wyoming](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/wyoming/) ### Alabama Based on 20 legal safeguards, Alabama ranks: 2626 ### Alaska Based on 20 legal safeguards, Alaska ranks: 4343 ### Arizona Based on 20 legal safeguards, Arizona ranks: 1212 ### Arkansas Based on 20 legal safeguards, Arkansas ranks: 11 ### California Based on 20 legal safeguards, California ranks: 4646 ### Colorado Based on 20 legal safeguards, Colorado ranks: 4141 ### Connecticut Based on 20 legal safeguards, Connecticut ranks: 3333 ### Delaware Based on 20 legal safeguards, Delaware ranks: 1818 ### Florida Based on 20 legal safeguards, Florida ranks: 33 ### Georgia Based on 20 legal safeguards, Georgia ranks: 2323 ### Hawaii Based on 20 legal safeguards, Hawaii ranks: 1717 ### Idaho Based on 20 legal safeguards, Idaho ranks: 88 ### Illinois Based on 20 legal safeguards, Illinois ranks: 55 ### Indiana Based on 20 legal safeguards, Indiana ranks: 2828 ### Iowa Based on 20 legal safeguards, Iowa ranks: 3131 ### Kansas Based on 20 legal safeguards, Kansas ranks: 2222 ### Kentucky Based on 20 legal safeguards, Kentucky ranks: 2020 ### Louisiana Based on 20 legal safeguards, Louisiana ranks: 2020 ### Maine Based on 20 legal safeguards, Maine ranks: 2525 ### Maryland Based on 20 legal safeguards, Maryland ranks: 1414 ### Massachusetts Based on 20 legal safeguards, Massachusetts ranks: 3838 ### Michigan Based on 20 legal safeguards, Michigan ranks: 4848 ### Minnesota Based on 20 legal safeguards, Minnesota ranks: 2323 ### Mississippi Based on 20 legal safeguards, Mississippi ranks: 66 ### Missouri Based on 20 legal safeguards, Missouri ranks: 2929 ### Montana Based on 20 legal safeguards, Montana ranks: 44 ### Nebraska Based on 20 legal safeguards, Nebraska ranks: 4444 ### Nevada Based on 20 legal safeguards, Nevada ranks: 3737 ### New Hampshire Based on 20 legal safeguards, New Hampshire ranks: 3030 ### New Jersey Based on 20 legal safeguards, New Jersey ranks: 3535 ### New Mexico Based on 20 legal safeguards, New Mexico ranks: 3131 ### New York Based on 20 legal safeguards, New York ranks: 5050 ### North Carolina Based on 20 legal safeguards, North Carolina ranks: 4242 ### North Dakota Based on 20 legal safeguards, North Dakota ranks: 1616 ### Ohio Based on 20 legal safeguards, Ohio ranks: 77 ### Oklahoma Based on 20 legal safeguards, Oklahoma ranks: 1515 ### Oregon Based on 20 legal safeguards, Oregon ranks: 3939 ### Pennsylvania Based on 20 legal safeguards, Pennsylvania ranks: 1313 ### Rhode Island Based on 20 legal safeguards, Rhode Island ranks: 2626 ### South Carolina Based on 20 legal safeguards, South Carolina ranks: 99 ### South Dakota Based on 20 legal safeguards, South Dakota ranks: 3636 ### Tennessee Based on 20 legal safeguards, Tennessee ranks: 22 ### Texas Based on 20 legal safeguards, Texas ranks: 1919 ### Utah Based on 20 legal safeguards, Utah ranks: 1111 ### Vermont Based on 20 legal safeguards, Vermont ranks: 4949 ### Virginia Based on 20 legal safeguards, Virginia ranks: 3333 ### Washington Based on 20 legal safeguards, Washington ranks: 1010 ### West Virginia Based on 20 legal safeguards, West Virginia ranks: 4747 ### Wisconsin Based on 20 legal safeguards, Wisconsin ranks: 4040 ### Wyoming Based on 20 legal safeguards, Wyoming ranks: 4545 [ ![RLS2026-cover](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/wp-content/media/RLS2026-cover-618x800.jpg) ## Download the Report and Data Our Downloads page provides free access to all downloadable materials, including our 2026 report, complete dataset, and 50 user-friendly state scorecards. Download Resources ](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/downloads/) [ ![Screenshot](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/wp-content/media/RLS_2026_Rankings.jpg) ## Download the 2026 State Rankings This downloadable PDF lists all 50 states ranked by their overall score. Download Rankings ](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/26-01_RLS-rankings-table_one-pager_final.pdf) ![002C7B4C-2316-48EC-91D3-70B4B519F663a](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/wp-content/media/002C7B4C-2316-48EC-91D3-70B4B519F663a-1200x800.jpg) ## What’s new in RLS 2026? Religious Liberty in the States (RLS) is a data project and index measure reflecting the current landscape of free-exercise protections at the state level. Now in its fifth annual edition, RLS analyzes all [fifty states](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/states/) on fifty detailed items. New items measured in RLS 2026 include a medical conscience protection that permits individuals to decline to participate in genetic counseling, a protection for individuals to opt-out of joining labor unions if they have religious objections to doing so, and whether states protect people from discrimination at public institutions of higher education because of their religious commitments. [ View State Details ](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/states/) ![DF192237-5A8C-4C55-9613-AA0515A99941a](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/wp-content/media/DF192237-5A8C-4C55-9613-AA0515A99941a.jpg) ## With richer data, anyone can dig deeper! RLS 2026 has been updated to reflect a broader scope of items in its [20 safeguards](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/safeguards/), including the changes in states’ laws during 2025. Equipped with five years of data, researchers and concerned citizens alike can see where states stand today and trace trends in religious liberty protections over time. Explore what your state is doing now to protect religious liberty, and where it’s lacking, look to other states for examples of what is possible. Find (and share) your [state’s scorecard](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/states/) or explore across states in a topic area of interest to you. Researchers will find the complete [RLS 2026 dataset](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/downloads/) useful. Now longitudinal, it includes complete citations to state statutes and detailed notes from the RLS research team. [ Learn About Safeguards ](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/safeguards/) ## In the News ![](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/wp-content/media/icon-quotes.svg) “All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.”George Washington (August 18, 1790) _Letter to the Hebrew Congregation in Newport, Rhode Island_ --- --- title: "RLS 2024 Archive" url: "https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/rls-2024-archive/" lang: "en-US" type: "page" description: "Title Click a State to Download its Scorecard 1. Illinois 2. Florida 3. Montana 4. Arkansas 5. Ohio 5. Mississippi 7. South Carolina 8. Utah 9. Washington 10. Maryland 11. New Mexico 12. North Dakota 13. Hawaii 14. Tennessee 15." last_modified: "2026-05-27T19:11:57+00:00" custom_fields: iawp_total_views: 126 --- # RLS 2024 Archive # Title [ ![rls2024 map](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/wp-content/media/rls2024-map.jpg) ](https://2024.religiouslibertyinthestates.com) ## Click a State to Download its Scorecard 1. [Illinois](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Illinois-Scorecard-2024.pdf) 2. [Florida](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Florida-Scorecard-2024.pdf) 3. [Montana](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Montana-Scorecard-2024.pdf) 4. [Arkansas](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Arkansas-Scorecard-2024.pdf) 5. [Ohio](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Ohio-Scorecard-2024.pdf) 5. [Mississippi](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Mississippi-Scorecard-2024.pdf) 7. [South Carolina](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-South-Carolina-Scorecard-2024.pdf) 8. [Utah](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Utah-Scorecard-2024.pdf) 9. [Washington](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Washington-Scorecard-2024.pdf) 10. [Maryland](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Maryland-Scorecard-2024.pdf) 11. [New Mexico](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-New-Mexico-Scorecard-2024.pdf) 12. [North Dakota](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-North-Dakota-Scorecard-2024.pdf) 13. [Hawaii](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Hawaii-Scorecard-2024.pdf) 14. [Tennessee](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Tennessee-Scorecard-2024.pdf) 15. [Delaware](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Delaware-Scorecard-2024.pdf) 16. [Rhode Island](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Rhode-Island-Scorecard-2024.pdf) 17. [Arizona](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Arizona-Scorecard-2024.pdf) 18. [Oklahoma](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Oklahoma-Scorecard-2024.pdf) 19. [Pennsylvania](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Pennsylvania-Scorecard-2024.pdf) 20. [Alabama](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Alabama-Scorecard-2024.pdf) 21. [Minnesota](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Minnesota-Scorecard-2024.pdf) 22. [Maine](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Maine-Scorecard-2024.pdf) 23. [Texas](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Texas-Scorecard-2024.pdf) 24. [Kansas](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Kansas-Scorecard-2024.pdf) 25. [Connecticut](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Connecticut-Scorecard-2024.pdf) 26. [Virginia](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Virginia-Scorecard-2024.pdf) 27. [Louisiana](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Louisiana-Scorecard-2024.pdf) 28. [Wisconsin](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Wisconsin-Scorecard-2024.pdf) 29. [Idaho](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Idaho-Scorecard-2024.pdf) 30. [Georgia](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Georgia-Scorecard-2024.pdf) 31. [Nevada](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Nevada-Scorecard-2024.pdf) 32. [South Dakota](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-South-Dakota-Scorecard-2024.pdf) 32. [North Carolina](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-North-Carolina-Scorecard-2024.pdf) 34. [Kentucky](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Kentucky-Scorecard-2024.pdf) 35. [Oregon](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Oregon-Scorecard-2024.pdf) 36. [Massachusetts](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Massachusetts-Scorecard-2024.pdf) 37. [Indiana](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Indiana-Scorecard-2024.pdf) 38. [Iowa](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Iowa-Scorecard-2024.pdf) 39. [Missouri](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Missouri-Scorecard-2024.pdf) 40. [Nebraska](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Nebraska-Scorecard-2024.pdf) 41. [New Hampshire](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-New-Hampshire-Scorecard-2024.pdf) 42. [Michigan](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Michigan-Scorecard-2024.pdf) 43. [Colorado](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Colorado-Scorecard-2024.pdf) 44. [New York](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-New-York-Scorecard-2024.pdf) 44. [New Jersey](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-New-Jersey-Scorecard-2024.pdf) 46. [Wyoming](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Wyoming-Scorecard-2024.pdf) 47. [Vermont](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Vermont-Scorecard-2024.pdf) 48. [California](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-California-Scorecard-2024.pdf) 49. [Alaska](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Alaska-Scorecard-2024.pdf) 50. [West Virginia](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-West-Virginia-Scorecard-2024.pdf) [ ![Religious Liberty in the States Report 2024](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/wp-content/media/Religious_Liberty_in_the_States_Report-2024.jpeg) Report ## Religious Liberty in the States The report (PDF) includes an overview of what’s new this year, complete state rankings, and helpful tables and figures.**Click to download PDF** ](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/Religious_Liberty_in_the_States_Report-2024.pdf) [ ![bw Religious Liberty in the States Report 2024.jpeg](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/wp-content/media/bw-Religious_Liberty_in_the_States_Report-2024.jpeg.jpg) Dataset ## Religious Liberty in the States This dataset (.xlsx) contains the data used to construct the index and rankings, along with research notes and links to state laws. It also includes data from the previous years of the index.**Click to download XLSX** ](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/Religious_Liberty_in_the_States_Dataset-2024.xlsx) --- --- title: "RLS 2023 Archive" url: "https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/rls-2023-archive/" lang: "en-US" type: "page" description: "Title Click a State to Download its Scorecard 1. Illinois 2. South Carolina 3. New Mexico 4. Ohio 4. Mississippi 6. Washington 7. Arkansas 8. Florida 9. Maryland 10. Pennsylvania 11. Utah 12. Tennessee 13. Delaware 14. Kansas 15. Rhode" last_modified: "2026-05-27T19:01:00+00:00" custom_fields: iawp_total_views: 177 --- # RLS 2023 Archive # Title ![rls2023](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/wp-content/media/rls2023.jpg) ## Click a State to Download its Scorecard 1. [Illinois](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Illinois-Scorecard-2023.pdf) 2. [South Carolina](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-South-Carolina-Scorecard-2023.pdf) 3. [New Mexico](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-New-Mexico-Scorecard-2023.pdf) 4. [Ohio](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Ohio-Scorecard-2023.pdf) 4. [Mississippi](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Mississippi-Scorecard-2023.pdf) 6. [Washington](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Washington-Scorecard-2023.pdf) 7. [Arkansas](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Arkansas-Scorecard-2023.pdf) 8. [Florida](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Florida-Scorecard-2023.pdf) 9. [Maryland](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Maryland-Scorecard-2023.pdf) 10. [Pennsylvania](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Pennsylvania-Scorecard-2023.pdf) 11. [Utah](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Utah-Scorecard-2023.pdf) 12. [Tennessee](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Tennessee-Scorecard-2023.pdf) 13. [Delaware](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Delaware-Scorecard-2023.pdf) 14. [Kansas](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Kansas-Scorecard-2023.pdf) 15. [Rhode Island](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Rhode-Island-Scorecard-2023.pdf) 16. [Hawaii](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Hawaii-Scorecard-2023.pdf) 17. [North Dakota](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-North-Dakota-Scorecard-2023.pdf) 17. [Arizona](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Arizona-Scorecard-2023.pdf) 19. [Idaho](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Idaho-Scorecard-2023.pdf) 20. [Montana](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Montana-Scorecard-2023.pdf) 21. [Maine](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Maine-Scorecard-2023.pdf) 22. [Alabama](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Alabama-Scorecard-2023.pdf) 23. [South Dakota](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-South-Dakota-Scorecard-2023.pdf) 24. [Minnesota](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Minnesota-Scorecard-2023.pdf) 25. [Wisconsin](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Wisconsin-Scorecard-2023.pdf) 25. [Georgia](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Georgia-Scorecard-2023.pdf) 27. [Missouri](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Missouri-Scorecard-2023.pdf) 27. [Louisiana](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Louisiana-Scorecard-2023.pdf) 29. [Connecticut](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Connecticut-Scorecard-2023.pdf) 30. [Oklahoma](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Oklahoma-Scorecard-2023.pdf) 31. [Massachusetts](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Massachusetts-Scorecard-2023.pdf) 32. [Nevada](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Nevada-Scorecard-2023.pdf) 33. [Oregon](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Oregon-Scorecard-2023.pdf) 33. [Iowa](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Iowa-Scorecard-2023.pdf) 35. [Virginia](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Virginia-Scorecard-2023.pdf) 35. [North Carolina](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-North-Carolina-Scorecard-2023.pdf) 37. [New Jersey](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-New-Jersey-Scorecard-2023.pdf) 38. [Indiana](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Indiana-Scorecard-2023.pdf) 39. [Kentucky](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Kentucky-Scorecard-2023.pdf) 40. [Michigan](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Michigan-Scorecard-2023.pdf) 41. [Colorado](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Colorado-Scorecard-2023.pdf) 42. [Texas](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Texas-Scorecard-2023.pdf) 43. [Wyoming](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Wyoming-Scorecard-2023.pdf) 44. [Nebraska](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Nebraska-Scorecard-2023.pdf) 45. [Alaska](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Alaska-Scorecard-2023.pdf) 46. [New York](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-New-York-Scorecard-2023.pdf) 47. [Vermont](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Vermont-Scorecard-2023.pdf) 48. [California](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-California-Scorecard-2023.pdf) 49. [New Hampshire](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-New-Hampshire-Scorecard-2023.pdf) 50. [West Virginia](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-West-Virginia-Scorecard-2023.pdf) [ ![RLS-2023-Executive-Summary-Cover](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/wp-content/media/RLS-2023-Executive-Summary-Cover.jpg) Executive Summary ## Religious Liberty in the States A brief overview (pdf) of the changes to RLS in its second year including the new safeguards measured and the resulting scores and rankings of the 50 states in 2023.**Click to download PDF** ](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/Religious_Liberty_in_the_States_Executive-2023.pdf) [ ![2023_ReligiousLiberty_Cover_055@2x](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/wp-content/media/2023_ReligiousLiberty_Cover_055@2x.jpg) Full Report ## Religious Liberty in the States The report (PDF) includes an executive summary, overview, tables and rankings, discussion of methodology, and all 50 state scorecards.**Click to download PDF** ](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/Religious_Liberty_in_the_States_Report-2023.pdf) [ ![2023_ReligiousLiberty_Cover_Dataset](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/wp-content/media/2023_ReligiousLiberty_Cover_Dataset.jpg) Dataset ## Religious Liberty in the States This dataset (.xlsx) contains the data used to construct the index and rankings.**Click to download XLSX** ](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/Religious_Liberty_in_the_States_Dataset-2023.xlsx) Note: Researchers and other users of RLS data are strongly encouraged to use the most updated version of our dataset available for download, rather than relying on archived data. Annual data updates are longitudinal, that is, they maintain assessments of past years’ statutory laws within the scope of RLS along with current data. Using the most recent data publication will give researchers access to any adjustment made in light of updating by legal citators and errata. --- --- title: "Errata and Revisions" url: "https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/errata/" lang: "en-US" type: "page" description: "Title Religious Liberty in the States is committed to the highest established standards, principles, and responsibilities for research. RLS affirms the principles and responsibilities as outlined in the Singapore Statement on Research Integrity: (1) \"Honesty in all aspects of research,\"" last_modified: "2026-07-08T12:50:25+00:00" custom_fields: iawp_total_views: 14 --- # Errata and Revisions # Title Religious Liberty in the States is committed to the highest established standards, principles, and responsibilities for research. RLS affirms the principles and responsibilities as outlined in the [Singapore Statement on Research Integrity](https://www.wcrif.org/statement): (1) “Honesty in all aspects of research,” (2) “Accountability in the conduct of research,” (3) “Professional courtesy and fairness in working with others,” and (4) “Good stewardship of research on behalf of others.” Part of this commitment to research integrity involves responding appropriately to criticisms, concerns, and questions about research methodology and findings of research. For that reason, RLS promotes a culture of discourse consistent with [The HxA Way](https://heterodoxacademy.org/resources/the-hxa-way/). Errors of fact that are discovered in the RLS index are acknowledged, corrected, and noted in subsequent editions and on our website. Each year, research assistants for Religious Liberty in the States revisit laws protecting religious liberty that we previously considered, search for new laws, and ensure that states have not passed protections they did not previously have. When we discover that we missed a protection that was in place or we gave credit to a state for a protection it does not have, we note such errors on this page and correct them in the database. However, we consider the final reports and state safeguard pages to be published and so do not revise them to reflect errors we discover later. Thus, when we write, for example, “Texas’s score increased by 9 percent,” we mean this with respect to last year’s reported RLS 2025 score, not with respect to what its score should have been. ## 2026 The following scoring changes were made for RLS 2026 and are reflected in all years since the law went into effect. **1. Abortion protections.** Since its inception in 2022, RLS has considered whether states protect individuals and/or institutions (e.g., private individuals and private hospitals) from having to participate in abortions. See the [Abortion Refusal Safeguard page](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/safeguard/health-care-provision-abortion-refusal/) for details. Since _Roe v. Wade_ (1973) was overturned by _Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization_ (2022), previously existing abortion bans went into effect or states have passed new laws banning abortion. As of January 1, 2026, thirteen states effectively ban all abortions (with a few exceptions, such as to save the life of a mother). A friendly critic pointed out that if abortion is completely illegal in a state, protections ensuring that individuals and institutions can’t be forced to perform them aren’t necessary (with the exception of performing an abortion to save the life of the mother). Some states that have banned abortions previously had protections in place to protect medical professionals from having to participate in abortions. Only bans that resulted in score changes are reported below. Credit is now given to each state for the following abortion protections (indicated in the chart with a check mark): | | TX | OK | TN | ND | IN | SD | WV | LA | MS | LA | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Individual Protection | | | | | | | | | | | | Private Hospital | ✔️ | ✔️ | | | | | | | | | | Public Hospital | ✔️ | ✔️ | ✔️ | ✔️ | ✔️ | | | | | | | Civil Liability | ✔️ | ✔️ | ✔️ | ✔️ | ✔️ | | | | | | | Criminal Liability | ✔️ | ✔️ | ✔️ | ✔️ | ✔️ | ✔️ | ✔️ | | | | | Government Consequences | ✔️ | ✔️ | ✔️ | ✔️ | ✔️ | ✔️ | ✔️ | | | | | Refusal in Emergency | ✔️ | | | | | | | | | | | Opt-out of disposing remains | ✔️ | ✔️ | ✔️ | ✔️ | ✔️ | ✔️ | ✔️ | ✔️ | ✔️ | | **2. Alabama: general conscience protection. **In the past, RLS gave Alabama credit for a general conscience protection, but the statute protects only individuals, not institutions. As well, it covers only abortion and sterilization, not contraception and other procedures (See [https://law.justia.com/codes/alabama/title-22/title-1/chapter-21b/section-22-21b-3/](https://law.justia.com/codes/alabama/title-22/title-1/chapter-21b/section-22-21b-3/)). Accordingly, for 2026 we have removed the state’s credit for a general conscience protection, but we have given the state credit for additional abortion protections because it bans abortion. **3. New Hampshire’s protection for public official nonparticipation in weddings **score changed from 0 to 1 because the “other persons authorized by law” provision of § 457:37 covers public officials. **4. New Jersey’s public hospital protection for abortion refusal **score was changed from 0 to 1 because § 2A:65A-2 is drafted broadly enough to cover both public and private hospitals. **5. Texas’s protection against insurance companies denying access **score was changed from 0 to 1 because TX Ins Code § 544.002 was discovered. **6. Pennsylvania’s consumption of alcohol for minors **score was changed from 0 to 1 because the statute governing furnishing is written such that there is a legal presumption that the alcoholic beverage will be consumed by the minor. **7. Tennessee’s protection for clergy nonparticipation in weddings **score was changed from 0 to 1 because of the discovery of § § 36-3-301(m), which grants protection to clergy not to be forced to solemnize a wedding against their religious beliefs. **8. Tennessee’s protection for public official nonparticipation in weddings **score was changed from 0 to 1 because of the discovery of § § 36-3-301(m), which stipulates that no one may be forced to solemnize a wedding against their religious beliefs. **9. Oklahoma’s K-12 excused absence for religious observance **score was changed from 0 to 1 because of the discovery of §70-10-105. **10. Nevada’s K-12 excused absence for religious observance **score was changed from 0 to 1 because of the discovery of NRS § 392.118. **11. New Jersey’s excused absence for universities **score was changed from 0 to 1 because of the discovery of § 18A:3B-37. **12. Utah’s excused absence for universities **score was changed from 0 to 1 because of the discovery of § 53B-27-405. **13. Florida’s protection from criminal prosecution regarding abortion **was changed from a 0 to 1 because §390.0111(8) is broad enough to prevent prosecution of a conscientious objector. **14. Vermont’s score for health insurance mandate (abortion)** went from 1 to 0 because a law (§ 4099e) that went into effect in 2024 required insurance plans to cover abortion and did not provide exceptions. **15. Pennsylvania was given credit for seven additional health protections **because § 448.901 is broad enough to protect individuals with objections to contraception, euthanasia, and counseling. ## Code Change RLS directors altered the General Conscience Protection code description: **_Original text:_** **IV. General Conscience Protection**** ** States safeguard health-care providers and/or health-care institutions in their right to refuse to provide medical care procedures based on conscience. Federal Context: There is no analogous federal law._    _ Possible Scores - 1 = State provides an open-ended conscience protection for health-care providers (safeguard applies to individuals or individuals and institutions) - 0 = State does not provide an open-ended conscience protection for health-care providers **_Revised text:_** **IV. General Conscience Protection** State safeguards health-care providers (individuals) and health-care institutions in their right to decline to provide medical care procedures based on conscience. Possible Codes - A = State provides an open-ended conscience protection for health-care providers and health-care institutions - B = State provides a general conscience protection for health-care providers only - C = State does not provide an open-ended conscience protection for health-care providers and health-care institutions Possible Scores - 1 = State provides an open-ended conscience protection for health-care providers and health-care institutions (A) - 0 = State does not provide an open-ended conscience protection for health-care providers and health-care institutions (B, C)   **_Rationale:_** We concluded that for a general conscience clause to be truly general it must protect both individuals _and_ institutions, not individuals _or _institutions. We added codes to recognize that two states (Alabama and Pennsylvania) have clauses that provide broad protections for individuals but not institutions. ## 2025 The following errors involving scoring changes were discovered for RLS 2025 and are now corrected for all years since law went into effect. **1. New Mexico’s general conscience protection. **New Mexico Code Ann. §§ 24-7A-7(E) and 24-7A-9 appeared to grant general protections to health-care workers, so RLS 2022, 2023, and 2024 gave the state credit for a robust general conscience protection that covered a host of more narrow protections regarding abortion and sterilization refusal. However, the context surrounding both statutes confines them in practice to advance directives and end-of-life health-care decisions. Accordingly, New Mexico is given credit for protecting health-care professionals from being forced to participate in euthanasia (added this year) but not a general conscience protection (and the narrow protections for abortion and sterilization that the general conscience clause was credited for protecting). Accordingly, its RLS 2024 safeguard score was reduced from 56.4 to 39.6 percent. See [Appendix A: New Mexico Memorandum](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/wp-content/media/Ridings_Caleb-Appendix_NM_Memorandum-RLS2025.pdf) for more details. **2. Washington’s general conscience protection. **Earlier versions of RLS missed the fact that Washington’s general conscience protection, §48.43.065(2)(a) covers three contraception protections (individual, private hospital, and public hospital refusal). Once we corrected these errors, the state’s RLS score for 2024 increased from 58.8 to 62 percent. **3. Florida’s excused absence in universities** score was changed from 0 to 1 following the discovery of Fla. Stat. §1006.53. Its 2024 score thus increased from 73.2 to 75 percent. --- --- title: "No Religious Discrimination in Foster Parent Eligibility" url: "https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/safeguard/no-religious-discrimination-in-foster-parent-eligibility/" lang: "en-US" type: "safeguard" last_modified: "2026-06-02T20:50:37+00:00" custom_fields: safeguard_description: "This safeguard ensures that current or prospective foster parents may not be forced to affirm, accept, or support any government policy regarding sexual orientation or gender identity that conflicts with the parent’s sincerely held religious or moral beliefs." safeguard_data_shortcode: "[rls_table safeguard=\"foster_parent\"]" iawp_total_views: 103 --- # No Religious Discrimination in Foster Parent Eligibility --- --- title: "Absentee Voting" url: "https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/safeguard/absentee-voting/" lang: "en-US" type: "safeguard" last_modified: "2026-07-13T17:21:08+00:00" custom_fields: safeguard_description: "Free exercise is safeguarded when a religious person has the ability to participate in an election, even when going to a polling place on election day would conflict with their beliefs (for instance, due to observance of a religious holiday.) Solid dots below indicate the states that permit some alternative means of voting in these situations, through either statutory or constitutional safeguarding. A state that facilitates all-mail elections, does not require an excuse for absentee voting, or that requires a reason for absentee voting but accepts religious reasons upholds free exercise of religion in this domain." safeguard_data_shortcode: "[rls_table safeguard=\"absentee_voting\"]" iawp_total_views: 161 --- # Absentee Voting --- --- title: "Immunization Requirement Exemption" url: "https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/safeguard/students-immunization-requirement-exemption/" lang: "en-US" type: "safeguard" last_modified: "2026-07-01T13:37:34+00:00" custom_fields: safeguard_description: "All states require immunization of school-aged children. Solid dots below indicate whether a state allows for any nonmedical exemptions from this requirement, whether for religious reasons or broader philosophical or moral reasons." safeguard_data_shortcode: "[rls_table safeguard=\"immunization\"]" iawp_total_views: 137 --- # Immunization Requirement Exemption --- --- title: "General Conscience Protection" url: "https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/safeguard/health-care-provision-general-conscience-provision/" lang: "en-US" type: "safeguard" last_modified: "2026-07-01T13:38:27+00:00" custom_fields: safeguard_description: "Solid dots below indicate the states that provide open-ended protections for health-care providers such that they can refuse to participate in any procedure for reasons of conscience. Since these laws are relatively rare, we include the names of the laws as well as the citation." safeguard_data_shortcode: "[rls_table safeguard=\"general_conscience\"]" iawp_total_views: 327 --- # General Conscience Protection --- --- title: "Abortion Refusal" url: "https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/safeguard/health-care-provision-abortion-refusal/" lang: "en-US" type: "safeguard" last_modified: "2026-07-06T18:47:55+00:00" custom_fields: safeguard_description: "This safeguard indicates the religious liberty protections available for health-care providers (individuals and institutions) with respect to abortion procedures. States exhibit variation in who has the right to refuse, from what negative consequences the entity is safeguarded, and whether there are limitations to those safeguards. This safeguard also includes an item measuring whether states protect employees of a facility in which an abortion may be performed from being required to handle or dispose of aborted remains if that individual objects to such procedures for religious reasons.\nSince Roe v. Wade (1973) was overturned by Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022), previously existing abortion bans went into effect or states have passed new laws banning abortion. As of January 1, 2026, thirteen states effectively ban all abortions (with a few exceptions, such as to save the life of a mother). Thus, if abortion is completely illegal in a state, protections ensuring that individuals and institutions can’t be forced to perform them aren’t necessary (with the exception of performing an abortion to save the life of the mother). A state may have adopted an abortion ban for reasons unrelated to religion, but if a state's law has the unintended consequence of protecting religious liberty, the state receives credit for doing so. For more details, see the report and the errata and revisions page.\n*A special note on public hospitals: Court cases in three states—Alaska, Minnesota, and New Jersey—have effectively eliminated state protections in abortion for public hospitals in these states. That is, these judicial rulings supersede the abortion refusal statutes cited here where they apply to public hospitals." safeguard_data_shortcode: "[rls_table safeguard=\"abortion_refusal\"]" iawp_total_views: 208 --- # Abortion Refusal --- --- title: "Sterilization Refusal" url: "https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/safeguard/health-care-provision-sterilization-refusal/" lang: "en-US" type: "safeguard" last_modified: "2026-07-06T18:47:30+00:00" custom_fields: safeguard_description: "This safeguard indicates the religious liberty protections available for health-care providers (individuals and institutions) with respect to sterilization procedures. States vary in who has the right to refuse and from what negative consequences the entity is safeguarded." safeguard_data_shortcode: "[rls_table safeguard=\"sterilization_refusal\"]" iawp_total_views: 113 --- # Sterilization Refusal --- --- title: "Contraception Refusal" url: "https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/safeguard/health-care-provision-contraception-refusal/" lang: "en-US" type: "safeguard" last_modified: "2026-07-13T17:26:07+00:00" custom_fields: safeguard_description: "This safeguard indicates the religious liberty protections available for health-care providers (individuals and institutions) with respect to contraception services. States vary in who has the right to refuse and from what negative consequences the entity is safeguarded." safeguard_data_shortcode: "[rls_table safeguard=\"contraception_refusal\"]" iawp_total_views: 93 --- # Contraception Refusal --- --- title: "Religious Entity Refusal to Participate in Weddings" url: "https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/safeguard/marriage-weddings-refusal-of-religious-entities/" lang: "en-US" type: "safeguard" last_modified: "2026-07-06T18:48:49+00:00" custom_fields: safeguard_description: "This safeguard captures any exemptions by states for religious organizations’ participation in marriage or wedding celebrations. Additionally, this safeguard includes the protections available for these religious entities should they refuse, specifically whether tax exempt status or more is protected." safeguard_data_shortcode: "[rls_table safeguard=\"religious_entity_wedding\"]" iawp_total_views: 121 --- # Religious Entity Refusal to Participate in Weddings --- --- title: "Nonparticipation in Weddings by Public Officials" url: "https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/safeguard/marriage-weddings-public-official-recusal/" lang: "en-US" type: "safeguard" last_modified: "2026-07-06T18:40:08+00:00" custom_fields: safeguard_description: "This safeguard tracks whether there are safeguards for government officials (who license and/or solemnize marriages) to recuse themselves from participation if the marriage conflicts with their personal religious beliefs. Solid dots below indicate that a state recognizes a right of recusal for government officials." safeguard_data_shortcode: "[rls_table safeguard=\"public_official_recusal\"]" iawp_total_views: 153 --- # Nonparticipation in Weddings by Public Officials --- --- title: "Nonparticipation in Economic Arrangements" url: "https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/safeguard/marriage-weddings-for-profit-business-nonparticipation/" lang: "en-US" type: "safeguard" last_modified: "2026-07-07T20:11:49+00:00" custom_fields: safeguard_description: "This safeguard measures two items related to religious liberty in economic or business arrangements: first, whether a state protects for-profit businesses from providing goods or services for marriage ceremonies or wedding celebrations that violate the personally held religious or moral beliefs of the business or business owner, and second, whether an individual may opt out of joining a labor union if he or she has a religious objection to doing so." safeguard_data_shortcode: "[rls_table safeguard=\"business_nonparticipation\"]" iawp_total_views: 124 --- # Nonparticipation in Economic Arrangements --- --- title: "Religious Freedom Restoration Act" url: "https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/safeguard/religious-freedom-restoration-act/" lang: "en-US" type: "safeguard" last_modified: "2026-07-01T13:34:41+00:00" custom_fields: safeguard_description: "This safeguard tracks whether a state had codified a RFRA before January 1, 2026, and if so, whether it is a statute or is part of the state’s constitution." safeguard_data_shortcode: "[rls_table safeguard=\"rfra\"]" iawp_total_views: 419 --- # Religious Freedom Restoration Act --- --- title: "Houses of Worship Protected from Closing" url: "https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/safeguard/religious-ceremonial-life-houses-of-worship-protected-from-closing/" lang: "en-US" type: "safeguard" last_modified: "2026-07-06T19:25:00+00:00" custom_fields: safeguard_description: "This safeguard measures whether a state protects houses of worship from being treated differently than similarly situated businesses." safeguard_data_shortcode: "[rls_table safeguard=\"houses_of_worship\"]" iawp_total_views: 98 --- # Houses of Worship Protected from Closing --- --- title: "Ceremonial Use of Alcohol by Minors" url: "https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/safeguard/religious-ceremonial-life-ceremonial-use-of-alcohol/" lang: "en-US" type: "safeguard" last_modified: "2026-07-06T19:26:25+00:00" custom_fields: safeguard_description: "This safeguard indicates whether states make exceptions to their minimum legal drinking age (MLDA) laws for religious ceremonies, specifically for the act of furnishing alcohol to minors and consumption of alcohol by minors within that ceremonial setting." safeguard_data_shortcode: "[rls_table safeguard=\"ceremonial_alcohol\"]" iawp_total_views: 218 --- # Ceremonial Use of Alcohol by Minors --- --- title: "Health Insurance Mandates" url: "https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/safeguard/health-insurance-mandates/" lang: "en-US" type: "safeguard" last_modified: "2026-07-06T19:37:05+00:00" custom_fields: safeguard_description: "The table below indicates whether states require insurance plans to cover contraception, abortion, and sterilization and whether they have exemptions only for houses of worship or for a broad set of religious employers. States that have either no mandates or whose mandates include a broad religious exemption are credited as providing a safeguard for religious employers in this regard." safeguard_data_shortcode: "[rls_table safeguard=\"health_insurance\"]" iawp_total_views: 70 --- # Health Insurance Mandates --- --- title: "Nonparticipation in Weddings by Clergy" url: "https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/safeguard/nonparticipation-in-weddings-by-clergy/" lang: "en-US" type: "safeguard" last_modified: "2026-07-06T19:28:04+00:00" custom_fields: safeguard_description: "This safeguard tracks whether there are protections for clergy to recuse themselves from participation if a marriage conflicts with their religious convictions." safeguard_data_shortcode: "[rls_table safeguard=\"clergy_wedding_recusal\"]" iawp_total_views: 79 --- # Nonparticipation in Weddings by Clergy --- --- title: "Clergy-Penitent Privilege Protected" url: "https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/safeguard/religious-ceremonial-life-clergy-as-mandatory-reporters/" lang: "en-US" type: "safeguard" last_modified: "2026-07-07T20:19:06+00:00" custom_fields: safeguard_description: "This safeguard indicates the states that exempt clergy from mandatory reporting laws." safeguard_data_shortcode: "[rls_table safeguard=\"clergy_penitent\"]" iawp_total_views: 264 --- # Clergy-Penitent Privilege Protected --- --- title: "Euthanasia Refusal" url: "https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/safeguard/euthanasia-refusal/" lang: "en-US" type: "safeguard" last_modified: "2026-06-02T20:42:28+00:00" custom_fields: safeguard_description: "This safeguard concerns states permitting health-care providers to decline to participate in euthanasia if they have religious objections to doing so." safeguard_data_shortcode: "[rls_table safeguard=\"euthanasia_refusal\"]" iawp_total_views: 48 --- # Euthanasia Refusal --- --- title: "Recusal of Counseling Provider" url: "https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/safeguard/recusal-of-counseling-provider/" lang: "en-US" type: "safeguard" last_modified: "2026-06-02T20:54:34+00:00" custom_fields: safeguard_description: "This safeguard asks if states protect counselors or therapists from being required to counsel or serve a client as to goals, outcomes, or behaviors that conflict with their sincerely held principles." safeguard_data_shortcode: "[rls_table safeguard=\"counseling_recusal\"]" iawp_total_views: 68 --- # Recusal of Counseling Provider --- --- title: "No Religious Discrimination in Financial Services / Insurance Provision" url: "https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/safeguard/no-religious-discrimination-in-financial-services/" lang: "en-US" type: "safeguard" last_modified: "2026-06-02T21:03:43+00:00" custom_fields: safeguard_description: "These protections consider whether states prohibit financial institutions or insurance companies from denying access to services due to religious beliefs." safeguard_data_shortcode: "[rls_table safeguard=\"financial_services\"]" iawp_total_views: 85 --- # No Religious Discrimination in Financial Services / Insurance Provision --- --- title: "School Protections" url: "https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/safeguard/family-and-education-school-protections/" lang: "en-US" type: "safeguard" last_modified: "2026-06-02T21:07:52+00:00" custom_fields: safeguard_description: "These items consider whether public schools are required (a) to grant excused absences to students for religious observances, (b) to grant excused absences for religious education, (c) to grant excused absences for university students for religious observances, (d) to permit parents to opt children out of sexual education, and (e) to permit student athletes to wear faith-related attire." safeguard_data_shortcode: "[rls_table safeguard=\"school_protections\"]" iawp_total_views: 278 --- # School Protections --- --- title: "Must Read Alaska: Why Does Alaska Score So Low on Religious Liberty Ranking?" url: "https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/must-read-alaska-why-does-alaska-score-so-low-on-religious-liberty-ranking/" lang: "en-US" type: "post" description: "What makes The Great Land score so low when it comes to religious liberty? The main culprits are the categories of sterilization and contraception refusal, areas in which Alaska received zero marks. " last_modified: "2026-07-14T14:00:27+00:00" categories: [News] custom_fields: iawp_total_views: 9 --- # Must Read Alaska: Why Does Alaska Score So Low on Religious Liberty Ranking? _Editor’s Note: The following column was [published](https://mustreadalaska.com/tim-barto-why-does-alaska-score-so-low-on-religious-liberty-ranking/) by _Must Read Alaska_ on August 9, 2024, and is authored by Tim Barto, senior contributor to _Must Read Alaska _and vice president of Alaska Family Council._ Alaska is ranked 49th in the nation for religious freedom, actually below California, which earned a 48th placement. This ranking is conducted by the Center for Religion, Culture & Democracy, and published in a study called Ranking Religious Liberty In The States. The organization has been publishing these studies since 2022, ranking each state from those that offer the most religious liberty (#1) to the least (#50). . . . So, what makes The Great Land score so low when it comes to religious liberty? The main culprits are the categories of sterilization and contraception refusal, areas in which Alaska received zero marks.  _Sterilization refusal_ refers to the ability of health-care providers, individuals, and institutions to opt out of performing sterilization procedures due to religious beliefs. Similarly, _contraception refusal_ refers to the same lack of exemptions.  . . . Another area in which Alaska can certainly improve in the area of religious liberty has to do with marriage and wedding celebrations. When it comes to allowing clergy, religious organizations, government officials, and private businesses from being allowed to recuse themselves from taking part in weddings or wedding celebrations that conflict with their religious convictions, Alaska scores extremely low.  . . . _Read the entire story at _Must Read Alaska_ [here](https://mustreadalaska.com/tim-barto-why-does-alaska-score-so-low-on-religious-liberty-ranking/)._ --- --- title: "Florida Daily: Florida Gets High Marks for Religious Liberty" url: "https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/florida-daily-florida-gets-high-marks-for-religious-liberty/" lang: "en-US" type: "post" description: "In 2023, Florida was ranked number 8 among religious liberty, in 2024, it moved up to number 2, according to a new report by the Center for Religion, Culture and Democracy (CRCD)." last_modified: "2026-07-14T14:00:42+00:00" categories: [News] --- # Florida Daily: Florida Gets High Marks for Religious Liberty _Editor’s Note: The following news story was [published](https://floridadaily.com/florida-gets-high-marks-for-religious-liberty/) by _FloridaDaily.com_ on August 14, 2024, and is authored by Ed Dean, publisher of _ FloridaDaily.com. In 2023, Florida was ranked number 8 among religious liberty, in 2024, it moved up to number 2, according to [a new report](https://crcd.net/religious-liberty-in-the-states/) by the **Center for Religion, Culture and Democracy** (CRCD). Its “**Religious Liberty in the States**” report looks at how states implement religious liberty on various issues. . . . The top states were Illinois, Florida, Montana, and Arkansas, and Mississippi and Ohio tied for fifth. Florida, as one of the most improved states, jumped by double digits. . . . _Read the entire story at _FloridaDaily.com_ [here](https://floridadaily.com/florida-gets-high-marks-for-religious-liberty/)._ --- --- title: "The Baltimore Sun: Maryland Deserves Credit for Protecting Religious Freedom" url: "https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/the-baltimore-sun-maryland-deserves-credit-for-protecting-religious-freedom/" lang: "en-US" type: "post" description: "Recent findings from the 2024 Religious Liberty in the States (RLS) report reveal a stark contrast between Maryland and Virginia in this regard, with Maryland far surpassing its southern neighbor." last_modified: "2026-07-14T14:00:29+00:00" categories: [News] custom_fields: iawp_total_views: 4 --- # The Baltimore Sun: Maryland Deserves Credit for Protecting Religious Freedom _Editor’s Note: The following op-ed was [published](https://www.baltimoresun.com/2024/08/21/maryland-deserves-credit-for-protecting-religious-freedom-guest-commentary/) by The Baltimore Sun on August 21, 2024, and is authored by Dr. Mark David Hall, director of RLS._ When Americans consider religious liberty, we often think of the First Amendment and related federal laws, but much of the responsibility to safeguard this freedom falls to individual states. Recent findings from the 2024 Religious Liberty in the States (RLS) report reveal a stark contrast between Maryland and Virginia in this regard, with Maryland far surpassing its southern neighbor. Religious Liberty in the States (RLS), an annual research project of the [Center for Religion, Culture & Democracy](https://crcd.net/), ranks states on their religious liberty policies. According to its 2024 ranking released last month, Maryland came in 10th place with 58% of the religious liberty protections tracked by the project. While Maryland lags behind the highest-ranked state of Illinois (85%), it’s still far ahead of Virginia. The Old Dominion ranks 26th with a score of only 42%. . . . While Virginia is falling short of its promise of religious liberty, Maryland is doing an admirable job of living up to its nickname, “the Free State.” Of course, there is more work to be done if Maryland wishes to stay near the top of the RLS ranking, or even challenge states like Florida and Illinois for first place. The [safeguards](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/safeguards/) tracked by RLS are a good place to start. By taking these steps, Maryland can not only maintain but enhance its standing as a leader in religious liberty protections, setting an example for other states to follow and ensuring that all residents can freely exercise their religious beliefs. . . . _Read the entire article_ _[here](https://www.baltimoresun.com/2024/08/21/maryland-deserves-credit-for-protecting-religious-freedom-guest-commentary/)_. --- --- title: "Center for Public Justice: 2024 Report Highlights Surprising Rankings And Key Trends" url: "https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/center-for-public-justice-2024-report-highlights-surprising-rankings-and-key-trends/" lang: "en-US" type: "post" description: "The RLS annual reports assess how well states do on a range of important religious freedom protections, with the intent not only to measure the degree of protection in a state but also thereby to identify what each state can do to increase its protection." last_modified: "2026-07-14T14:00:31+00:00" categories: [News] custom_fields: iawp_total_views: 1 --- # Center for Public Justice: 2024 Report Highlights Surprising Rankings And Key Trends _Editor’s Note: The following story was [published](https://cpjustice.org/religious-liberty-in-the-states-2024-report-highlights-surprising-rankings-and-key-trends/) by the Center for Public Justice on August 7, 2024, and is authored by [Dr. Stanley Carlson-Thies](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/advisory-council/stanley-carlson-thies/), founder and senior director of the Institutional Religious Freedom Alliance and advisory council member for RLS._ On July 19, 2024, the Religious Liberty in the States (RLS) project released its [third annual report](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/Religious_Liberty_in_the_States_Report-2024.pdf) measuring how well the 50 states protect crucial dimensions of individual and institutional religious freedom. In what will likely be a surprise to many, the report ranks the state of Illinois as most protective (Florida and Montana are next) and West Virginia as the least (Alaska and California are nearly as deficient). That counterintuitive ranking, if nothing else, should encourage advocates, citizens, policymakers, and reporters to visit the project website for the downloadable brief 2024 report and the extensive web-based resources detailing the rankings, the 39 distinct types of religious freedom that have been measured, and the report’s methodology. The data reveal significant improvements in Florida and Montana, and although West Virginia remains at the bottom, it has made notable gains in religious freedom. However, the 2024 report shows that most states have enacted less than half of the possible protections available to them. As the report notes, laws that restrict or protect religious freedom are adopted at the state and not only at the federal level. Thus, to know how well the religious freedom of people and organizations is being protected, it is essential to look closely at state policies and not only action at the federal level. Often, persons and organizations are subject to both federal and state requirements; in other policy areas, states have the primary jurisdiction. (And states determine what cities and counties may do.) However, before the Religious Liberty in the States reports began in 2022, no overview of state religious freedom provisions and trends was available. Religious Liberty in the States is a project of the Center for Religion, Culture and Democracy and the First Liberty Institute.  The RLS annual reports assess how well states do on a range of important religious freedom protections, with the intent not only to measure the degree of protection in a state but also thereby to identify what each state can do to increase its protection. The web-based complete report links to the actual statutes so that policymakers, citizens, and advocates can easily determine what legislation a state can adopt in order to increase the protection it provides.  . . . _Read the entire article [here](https://cpjustice.org/religious-liberty-in-the-states-2024-report-highlights-surprising-rankings-and-key-trends/)._ --- --- title: "The Columbus Dispatch: Ohio Ranks in Top 5 States for Protecting Religious Liberties, Study Finds" url: "https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/the-columbus-dispatch-ohio-ranks-in-top-5-states-for-protecting-religious-liberties-study-finds/" lang: "en-US" type: "post" description: "When it comes to protecting religious freedoms, Ohio ranks highly as one of the top states, according to a study from the conservative legal group First Liberty Institute." last_modified: "2026-07-14T14:00:33+00:00" categories: [News] --- # The Columbus Dispatch: Ohio Ranks in Top 5 States for Protecting Religious Liberties, Study Finds _Editor’s Note: The following news story was [published](https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/2024/07/27/ohio-rank-states-protecting-religious-liberties/74556970007/) by _The Columbus Dispatch_ on July 27, 2024, and is authored by Alex Perry, reporter for _The Columbus Dispatch. Faith and religious freedom, and [the right to exercise them](https://www.dispatch.com/story/opinion/2024/05/28/church-attendance-social-isolation-community-engagement/73704566007/), remains a deeply-rooted way of life for many Americans. The First Amendment backs up that right. But how significant are religious protections in Ohio? When it comes to protecting religious freedoms, Ohio ranks highly as one of the top states, according to a study from the conservative legal group [First Liberty Institute](https://firstliberty.org/news/2024-rls-index/). The organization’s 2024 Religious Liberty in the States (RLS) Index developed a catalog of domestic religious freedom, which ranks religious liberty protections for each of the 50 states. The study examined legal religious “safeguards” found in state laws and constitutions, such as “protecting houses of worship from closing.” . . . According to First Liberty, the study delved deeper into its previous reports and added more religious elements for consideration, from 29 items in 2022 to 39 safeguards in 2024. Protections include absentee voting, marriage and weddings, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. . . . _Read the entire story at _The Columbus Dispatch_ [here](https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/2024/07/27/ohio-rank-states-protecting-religious-liberties/74556970007/)._ --- --- title: "Christian Post: Best and Worst States for Religious Liberty" url: "https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/christian-post-best-and-worst-states-for-religious-liberty/" lang: "en-US" type: "post" description: "For the second year in a row, Illinois has ranked as the best state for religious liberty because it has the most safeguards in place, while a majority of other states continue to lack adequate protections for people of faith. " last_modified: "2026-07-14T14:00:35+00:00" categories: [News] --- # Christian Post: Best and Worst States for Religious Liberty _Editor’s Note: The following news story was [published](https://www.christianpost.com/news/best-and-worst-states-for-religious-liberty-report.html) by the _Christian Post_ on July 23, 2024, and is authored by Ryan Foley, reporter for the _Christian Post. For the second year in a row, Illinois has ranked as the best state for religious liberty because it has the most safeguards in place, while a majority of other states continue to lack adequate protections for people of faith.  The Center for Religion, Culture and Democracy at First Liberty Institute released its third annual Religious Liberty in the States [report](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/Religious_Liberty_in_the_States_Report-2024.pdf) last week. The report ranks all 50 states based on the presence or absence of religious liberty safeguards. For the second year in a row, Illinois was ranked the best state for religious liberty, while West Virginia was ranked the worst.  However, Illinois’ overall score of 81% marked a 4% drop from the 85% it received last year. While West Virginia received the lowest score among all 50 states, it saw its score nearly double from 14% last year to 24% this year.  . . . Across the United States, the most commonly adopted religious liberty safeguard is exemptions to health insurance mandates. The following states do not have exemptions to immunization requirements: California, Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, Iowa, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Vermont, Virginia and Wisconsin lacking complete protections in this area. Only California, Connecticut, Maine, Mississippi, New York and West Virginia.  All but eight states — Alabama, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, New York, South Carolina, Texas and West Virginia — allow absentee voting for religious reasons. . . . _Read the entire story at the _Christian Post_ [here](https://www.christianpost.com/news/best-and-worst-states-for-religious-liberty-report.html)._ --- --- title: "Fox News: New Report Identifies Best and Worst US States for Religious Liberty" url: "https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/fox-news-new-report-identifies-best-and-worst-us-states-for-religious-liberty/" lang: "en-US" type: "post" description: "A recent report by First Liberty Institute, the Texas-based nonprofit Christian conservative legal organization, shows which U.S. states are making good on that promise — with others falling behind. " last_modified: "2026-07-14T14:00:36+00:00" categories: [News] custom_fields: iawp_total_views: 3 --- # Fox News: New Report Identifies Best and Worst US States for Religious Liberty _Editor’s Note: The following news story was [published](https://www.foxnews.com/lifestyle/report-identifies-best-worst-us-states-religious-liberty) by _Fox News_ on July 24, 2024, and is authored by Ashley DiMella, writer for _Fox News Digital. It is the First Amendment of the Constitution that protects religious freedom, with the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause further safeguarding that right. A recent report by First Liberty Institute, the Texas-based nonprofit [Christian conservative](https://www.foxnews.com/category/us/religion/christianity) legal organization, shows which U.S. states are making good on that promise — with others falling behind.  The nonprofit compared how the 50 states protect religious liberty through legislation. . . . The worst state for religious liberty based on the report is West Virginia at 25%. First Liberty Institute noted that the state’s score rose from the previous year from 14%, due to the adoption of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. West Virginia’s Gov. [Jim Justice](https://www.foxnews.com/category/us/us-regions/southeast/west-virginia), a Republican, signed the law in March prohibiting the state from substantially burdening someone’s constitutional right to freedom of religion unless doing so “is essential to further a compelling governmental interest,” the Associated Press reported at the time. First Liberty noted on its website, “Many states are making big improvements, and the data clearly shows it. But there’s still plenty of room for progress.” . . . _Read the entire story at _Fox News_ [here](https://www.foxnews.com/lifestyle/report-identifies-best-worst-us-states-religious-liberty)._ --- --- title: "Introducing a Comprehensive Guide to Enhancing Religious Liberty" url: "https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/introducing-a-comprehensive-guide-to-enhancing-religious-liberty/" lang: "en-US" type: "post" description: "Many readers come away from studying the RLS index with questions of how exactly their state can improve. That’s why the Center for Religion, Culture & Democracy (CRCD) has published a comprehensive guide that highlights the areas where improvements can be made to ensure robust safeguards for all citizens." last_modified: "2026-07-14T14:00:38+00:00" categories: [News] custom_fields: iawp_total_views: 2 --- # Introducing a Comprehensive Guide to Enhancing Religious Liberty Religious liberty is a cornerstone of American democracy, enshrined in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It ensures that individuals can practice their faith freely and live according to their deeply held beliefs without undue government interference. This principle is not only vital for the flourishing of religious communities but also for the preservation of a pluralistic society where diverse beliefs and practices can coexist. Despite its foundational importance, the extent of religious liberty protections varies significantly from state to state. State governments play a critical role in implementing and upholding these protections, and it is our hope that the annual Religious Liberty in the States (RLS) report will continue to shine light on areas where states can improve their protections while also celebrating states that are actively passing new legislation that extends the frontier of religious liberty. Many readers come away from studying the RLS index with questions of how exactly their state can improve. That’s why the Center for Religion, Culture & Democracy (CRCD) has published a comprehensive [guide](https://crcd.net/projects/social-policy/) that highlights the areas where improvements can be made to ensure robust safeguards for all citizens. This guide, entitled “[Securing Religious Liberty in Your State: A Guide for Lawmakers and Advocates](https://crcd.net/projects/social-policy/),” is an essential resource for lawmakers, advocates, and engaged citizens committed to safeguarding the fundamental freedom of religious expression. As we navigate the complexities of religious freedom in contemporary society, this guide serves as a crucial tool to inform and inspire legislative and grassroots efforts. ## **Five Key Recommendations from the Guide** The guide provides practical recommendations to enhance religious liberty protections based on the latest data and analyses from RLS. Here are the five key recommendations: **Adopt Religious Freedom Restoration Acts (RFRAs)** Following the limitations placed on the First Amendment protections by the Supreme Court in _Employment Division v. Smith_ (1990), [RFRAs](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/safeguard/religious-freedom-restoration-act/) ensure that religious liberty is robustly protected. Tennessee’s RFRA is highlighted as a model, providing broad protection against government actions that substantially burden religious exercise unless there is a compelling governmental interest pursued by the least restrictive means​​. **Implement General Conscience Clauses in Health Care** States should adopt [general conscience protections](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/safeguard/health-care-provision-general-conscience-provision/) similar to those in Washington, which safeguard healthcare providers from being compelled to participate in procedures that violate their religious or moral beliefs. This ensures that healthcare practitioners can exercise their rights without facing discrimination or penalties​​. **Protect For-Profit Business Nonparticipation in Weddings** States should follow Mississippi’s example, which protects businesses from being forced to provide services for wedding ceremonies that conflict with their religious beliefs. This [safeguard](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/safeguard/marriage-weddings-for-profit-business-nonparticipation/) prevents litigation against business owners who wish to operate according to their conscience​​. **Allow Public Officials to Recuse from Marriage Ceremonies** Legislation should [permit public officials to recuse](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/safeguard/marriage-weddings-public-official-recusal/) themselves from participating in marriage ceremonies that conflict with their religious beliefs. North Carolina’s statute serves as a model, allowing officials to opt-out based on sincerely held religious objections while ensuring all citizens can still access services​​. **Provide Excused Absences for Religious Holidays in Schools** States should pass laws requiring schools to [grant excused absences](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/safeguard/students-excused-absences-for-religious-reasons/) for students observing religious holidays. California’s statute, which includes religious holidays among justifiable personal reasons for school absence, is an excellent example of accommodating religious diversity in educational settings​​. **Encouraging Legislative Action** State lawmakers have a unique opportunity to strengthen religious liberty protections within their jurisdictions. By adopting the safeguards outlined in this guide, states can ensure that their residents are free to live according to their conscience without fear of discrimination or legal repercussions. Engaged citizens and advocacy groups play a crucial role in the legislative process. This guide, in combination with the annual RLS index, can empower readers with the knowledge and tools needed to advocate effectively for stronger religious liberty protections. By understanding the specific areas where their state falls short, advocates can target their efforts and work collaboratively with lawmakers to achieve meaningful reforms. We encourage lawmakers, advocates, and engaged citizens to read this guide. For more information and to access the guide, please visit the Center for Religion, Culture & Democracy (CRCD) website [here](https://crcd.net/projects/social-policy/). --- --- title: "Announcing RLS 2024’s #1 State: Illinois" url: "https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/announcing-rls-2024s-1-state-illinois/" lang: "en-US" type: "post" description: "Illinois has once again earned the highest score in the Religious Liberty in the States (RLS) 2024 rankings, maintaining its position as the top state for protecting religious liberty. Despite this achievement, Illinois' overall score has dropped slightly from the" last_modified: "2026-07-14T14:00:40+00:00" categories: [News] custom_fields: iawp_total_views: 12 --- # Announcing RLS 2024’s #1 State: Illinois Illinois has once again earned the highest score in the Religious Liberty in the States (RLS) 2024 rankings, maintaining its position as the top state for protecting religious liberty. Despite this achievement, Illinois’ overall score has dropped slightly from the previous year, highlighting an area where the state can further improve its protections. The Land of Lincoln earned a [score](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/illinois/) of 80 percent, a notable achievement that underscores the state’s comprehensive approach to safeguarding religious freedom. Illinois’ robust legal framework includes a wide array of state laws designed to protect the free exercise of religion for its residents. These protections ensure that individuals can practice their faith freely and without undue interference. This score is more than three times higher than the lowest state, [West Virginia](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/west-virginia/) (25 percent). Illinois is seven percentage points higher than the second state, [Florida](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/florida/) (73 percent), and is 14 percentage points higher than the third state, [Montana](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/montana/) (66 percent). ## **The Impact of New Safeguards** The RLS 2024 report introduced five new items to its index, reflecting the evolving landscape of religious liberty protections. Illinois already had four of these new items in place: - Health Insurance Mandate Exemption for Sterilizations - Health Insurance Mandate Exemption for Abortions - Excused Absences for School-Aged Students for Religious Instruction - Excused Absences for College and University Students for Religious Reasons However, Illinois does not have a statute protecting houses of worship from closing (the fifth new item added this year), which contributed to the slight drop in the state’s overall score from last year. This protection is relatively new on the national landscape, coming about in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Eighteen states quickly passed statutes that prohibit governments from treating houses of worship differently than similarly situated businesses. Florida and Montana were among them, but Illinois was not. If Illinois wishes to stay at the top of the rankings in future years, it should consider implementing this safeguard, as well as any others it lacks, because many other states are actively considering legislation to improve their religious liberty protections. ## **Illinois’ Future** Almost all of the state’s religious liberty protections were adopted between 1934 and 1998, when the state was far more conservative. For example, Republican presidential candidates won the state in eight of ten elections between 1952 and 1988, but they haven’t come close in the last eight elections. Also, Democrats have controlled both houses of the state legislature since 2003. A recent [study](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4889053.) commissioned by the CRCD demonstrates that Illinois is resting on its laurels.  Indeed, the state legislature has recently attempted to remove protections adopted earlier, and it has been less likely to adopt new protections. Despite the slight drop in its score, Illinois remains a model for other states to emulate as they strive to improve their religious liberty safeguards. One of the most important lessons from the state is that lawmakers ought to pass religious liberty protections when they have the chance, and those protections will continue to benefit the residents of their state even if the political winds change as they seem to have in Illinois. Only time will tell if the Prairie State will maintain their top spot for another year or fall to a state that is more actively protecting religious liberty. Want to see where your state ranks? Check out the RLS index state ranking or access the [report](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/downloads/) to learn more. --- --- title: "Announcing RLS 2024’s Runner-up State: Florida" url: "https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/announcing-rls-2024s-runner-up-state-florida/" lang: "en-US" type: "post" description: "Florida's increase in the rankings is a good example of the two main ways a state's score is affected from year to year—by passing new laws and having laws on the books that are reflected in new safeguards identified by RLS over time." last_modified: "2026-07-14T13:59:54+00:00" categories: [News] --- # Announcing RLS 2024’s Runner-up State: Florida Florida has ranked in the top ten in Religious Liberty in the States’ previous two editions, but its position among those ten states has fallen and risen dramatically each year. In 2022, Florida ranked fourth, with a score of 58 percent. The following year, its percentage rose slightly to 60 percent, but it fell to eighth place in the rankings. RLS 2023 added new items and safeguards for which the Sunshine State already had statutes, but several other states rose ahead because they took intentional legislative action to protect religious liberty that year. This year, it was Florida that took the legislative initiative that fueled its rise to second place in RLS 2024’s religious liberty rankings with a 73 percent score—an impressive 13-point rise. Florida lawmakers passed a general conscience provision for medical providers with religious or moral objections to certain procedures. They also protected houses of worship from being closed during pandemics, which is one of the new safeguards RLS added this year. Florida’s increase in the rankings is a good example of the two main ways a state’s score is affected from year to year—by passing new laws and having laws on the books that are reflected in new safeguards identified by RLS over time. ## **General Conscience Safeguard** On May 11, 2023, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed [SB 1580](http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0300-0399/0381/Sections/0381.00321.html) into law. It took effect on July 1, 2023. The law protects medical professionals and insurers from having to participate in procedures to which they have religious or moral objections. As the law [states](http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0300-0399/0381/Sections/0381.00321.html), “‘Right of medical conscience’ means the right of a health care provider or health care payor to abide by sincerely held religious, moral, or ethical beliefs… A health care provider or payor has the right to opt out of participation in or payment for any health care service on the basis of a conscience-based objection.” Florida also added statutes for protecting objections related to sterilization and contraception refusal, bringing its total exemptions for health care providers to 14 out of 20. ## **Protecting Houses of Worship from Forced Closures** One of the many controversies during the COVID-19 pandemic was the forced closure of churches and other houses of worship while similarly situated businesses and other entities were allowed to remain open. The criteria determining which entities were “essential” often seemed arbitrary. In response, Florida was one of 18 states to pass a law treating houses of worship the same way local and state governments had been treating essential services throughout the pandemic. Because this is a new statute that is actually on the books in several states, we added this as a new safeguard in RLS’s 2024 edition. SB 254 took effect in Florida on July 1, 2022. It prevents the state from discriminating against religious institutions in these matters and protects the freedom of these places to determine for themselves whether they’ll close. The law applies to all houses of worship equally, not just Christian churches. This provision is an example of how a state’s RLS score can change as the report continually updates the safeguards it identifies from year to year. ## **Can Florida Dethrone Illinois in Future Rankings?** Florida has made great progress over the last year. But it can do more, and to improve it would do well to look to Illinois, which has held on to its first-place position. The biggest difference between the two states concerns the Health-Care Provisions group. Illinois has protections for all items pertaining to sterilization and contraception refusal and six of the seven items under abortion refusal. Florida, however, does not provide complete protection for any of these specific conscience-based refusals. While it has made progress by passing its general conscience statute, it can further protect this fundamental right by focusing on these detailed items in the coming year. The Sunshine State also lacks half the safeguards for freedoms found in the Marriages and Weddings group and has failed to enact one-third of the safeguards for Religious Ceremonial Life. None of this is to take away from Florida’s impressive gains from 2023 to 2024. Its initiative to pass laws protecting conscious medical objectors illustrates how a state can create concrete, positive change in the lives of its citizens, while its early decision to protect houses of worship shows how additional safeguards identified by RLS each year can reveal existing conditions for religious liberty in any given state. Want to see where your state ranks? Check out the RLS index state ranking or access the [report](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/downloads/) to learn more. --- --- title: "How RLS Has Expanded in Its Third Edition" url: "https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/how-rls-has-expanded-in-its-third-edition/" lang: "en-US" type: "post" description: "RLS expanded its scope this year to include two new safeguards, bringing the total to 16. Within these safeguards are items that illuminate who is protected from what consequences and what practices those protections enable those individuals to carry out." last_modified: "2026-07-14T13:59:55+00:00" categories: [News] --- # How RLS Has Expanded in Its Third Edition The goal of the Religious Liberty in the States report is to rank states on their religious liberty policies and analyze the different ways states do—or don’t—protect this fundamental right. Doing so also helps us see the degree to which people are free to exercise their religious liberty from state to state.  The central way RLS illustrates these variances is through safeguards, which represent the opportunities in everyday life to practice religious liberty. New areas have been identified every year since the project’s launch in 2022.  Within these safeguards are items that illuminate who is protected from what consequences and what practices those protections enable those individuals to carry out. Both items and their parent safeguards fall into groups that represent the connections between various safeguards.  The original scope of religious liberty protections outlined in RLS’ 2022 edition covered 29 items nested within 11 safeguards and six overall groups. In 2023, RLS expanded its coverage to include 34 items, 14 safeguards, and seven groups.  This year, there are 39 items and 16 [safeguards](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/safeguards/). Each expansion of these protections can significantly alter a state’s score and its reputation for valuing and defending religious liberty.  ## **What Changed in the RLS from 2023 to 2024** RLS expanded its scope this year to include two new safeguards, bringing the total to 16.  These safeguards remain in the seven groups established in 2022: - Absentee Voting - Health-Care Provisions - Health Insurance Mandate (regarding abortion, contraception, and sterilization) - Marriage & Weddings - Religious Ceremonial Life - Religious Freedom Restoration Act - School-Aged Children The first new safeguard measures whether houses of worship are protected from closing during a pandemic or similar crises. This was identified in response to eighteen states establishing statutes that prohibited governments from treating houses of worship differently than similarly situated businesses. It falls within the purview of Religious Ceremonial Life.  The second safeguard was an item that has been elevated to a safeguard: nonparticipation by clergy in ceremonies that violate their conscience and can be found in the Marriage & Weddings group. This is as important as the protection of public officials, which was identified as a safeguard in 2023.  Learn more about these two new safeguards [here](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/safeguards/).  The five new items in RLS 2024 include health insurance mandate exceptions permitting employers to decline coverage for abortions or sterilizations if they have religious objections to these procedures. The safeguard for houses of worship has also been established as an item; the final two new items cover laws that allow college and university students to have excused absences for religious reasons. ## **Comparing the results from 2023 to 2024** 2024 saw the same number of states with scores above 50 percent—only 13 in both years. However, the average score slightly increased, from 44 percent in 2023 to 45 percent in 2024. The most remarkable changes from 2023 to 2024 are the significant improvement for Florida, Montana, and last place West Virginia. [Florida](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/florida/) now has a safeguard score of 73 percent (compared to 60 percent in 2023), [Montana](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/montana/) has a safeguard score of 66 percent (compared to 46 percent), and although it is still in last place, [West Virginia](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/west-virginia/)’s safeguard score improved from 14 to 25 percent.  Florida and Montana, which now rank 2nd and 3rd, respectively, after ranking 8th and 20th in 2023, increased their scores because their legislators passed laws to protect items measured in previous RLS reports, and they had some, but not all, of the new safeguards already in place. West Virginia improved its score by passing a Religious Freedom Restoration Act.  Although [Illinois](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/illinois/) remains in first place, its safeguard score dropped from 85 to 80 percent because it lacks one of the newly added safeguards—the statute protecting houses of worship.  As the index changes, it is important to assess whether scores are the result of new components being in place rather than changes to the original safeguards and to refrain from making apples-to-apples comparisons from one year to the next. Learn more about how to compare scores from different years [here](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/how-to-compare-scores-year-over-year-with-rls/). --- --- title: "How To Compare Scores Year-Over-Year with RLS" url: "https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/how-to-compare-scores-year-over-year-with-rls/" lang: "en-US" type: "post" description: "The third year of the Religious Liberty in the States report, like last year’s edition, identifies new safeguards for religious liberty that have increased in awareness and importance over the past year. These new safeguards affect the state rankings from one year to the next. " last_modified: "2026-07-14T13:59:57+00:00" categories: [News] custom_fields: iawp_total_views: 6 --- # How To Compare Scores Year-Over-Year with RLS The third year of the Religious Liberty in the States report, like last year’s edition, identifies new [safeguards](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/safeguards/) for religious liberty that have increased in awareness and importance over the past year. These new safeguards affect the state rankings from one year to the next.  Given the expansion of safeguards from year to year, it’s important for RLS readers to know what comprises a state’s score compared to previous years. Put another way: Why, exactly, did a given state’s score increase or decrease?  Knowing this is important because it helps audiences get an accurate picture of their state’s commitment to religious liberty and whether they will experience any implications as a result of their state’s change in score.  Generally, there are two types of changes that affect a state’s score.  First, RLS determines whether a state passed new laws concerning religious liberty and looks for whether those statutory changes pertain to, or were in response to, any of the safeguards included in the past year’s RLS report.  The second change regards the expansion of the safeguards themselves. New safeguards added to the index in 2024 affect a state’s score depending on whether it already did—or didn’t—have protections on the books for these aspects of religious liberty.  In other words, a state’s score in any given year depends on what actions the state may have taken since the previous year to strengthen religious liberty protections and what changes have occurred in the RLS report itself within that same time frame.  Good examples of the first effect are Florida, Montana, and West Virginia, all of whom, as discussed below, improved their scores by passing laws to better protect religious liberty in their states. Illustrations of the second type of change, Illinois and New Hampshire, saw their scores change not because they took any particular actions, but because of the expanded scope of what it means to protect religious liberty reflected in this year’s edition.  So, just because a state’s score increased doesn’t necessarily mean it’s taken meaningful action within the past year or demonstrated an increased commitment to protecting this important right, and vice versa.  ![Screenshot](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/wp-content/media/2024-RLS-Figure_3-904x1200.jpg) Figure 3 from the report breaks down the overall change in six states’ scores over the last two years of RLS: 2023’s number one and number 50 states (Illinois and West Virginia, still), as well as two states that made statutory changes to their religious liberty laws and two others whose scores were affected solely by additions to RLS’ list of safeguards.  The horizontal axis labels “2023 Score” and “2024 Score” indicate that the vertical measures above them are the official, reported RLS scores in that year. The label “2024′” on that same axis indicates that the simulated scores plotted directly above are what the scores in 2024 would be had we not expanded the set of safeguards measured. Illinois still ranks first in 2024, but its score decreased by five percentage points from 2023 to 2024 because the state does not include one of the safeguards we added for RLS 2024—a statute protecting houses of worship from closing. New Mexico lacks even more protections for RLS 2024. It still does not provide any items in the Marriage & Weddings category, including laws protecting clergy from being forced to participate in ceremonies that violate their conscience (which was elevated to a safeguard in 2024). It also has no laws protecting houses of worship from being forced to close during a pandemic—an item we’ve added in the wake of COVID-19. As a result of these and other gaps, New Mexico has dropped eight spots to 11th place. Legislators in Florida and Montana should be given significant credit for doing more to protect religious liberty in their respective states. Both states passed new laws to protect items measured in earlier iterations of RLS, and they had several of the added safeguards in place, including protecting houses of worship from closing. Notably, both states passed general conscience provisions intended to protect medical professionals from having to participate in procedures to which they have religious or moral objections. [Florida](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/florida/) now ranks 2nd after placing 8th last year; [Montana](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/montana/) has risen to 3rd place after ranking 20th in 2023.  [New Hampshire](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/new-hampshire/) is a good example of a state increasing their score without significant implications for their residents. The Granite State’s ranking also improved, from 49th to 41st, but only because the state already had laws protecting items added for RLS 2024, including those for clergy and houses of worship.  [West Virginia](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/west-virginia/) remains in last place, but we are pleased to report that the state passed a Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which contributed to the 11 percent increase in its score. Finally, in making comparisons of a state’s scores across time, one should note that, with an expanding scope, each of the original 11 safeguards established in RLS 2022 now represents a smaller portion of the whole. All the safeguards are weighted equally, and RLS is measured on a scale of 0 to 100 percent so as to reflect the percent of feasible safeguards a state has in place. But now with 16 safeguards in 2024, a single safeguard is one-sixteenth (approximately 6.3 percent) of the whole (potential) score rather than one-eleventh (about 9 percent) of the whole. We also acknowledge that some safeguards offer more protection than others. If we had to choose between a state adopting a Religious Freedom Restoration Act and laws requiring that students be excused from school for religious reasons, we would choose the former. But we hope that all states adopt both protections, as well as the other safeguards we measure.  --- --- title: "2024 Dataset" url: "https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/downloads/2024-dataset/" lang: "en-US" type: "page" description: "Dataset Religious Liberty in the States 2024 This dataset (.xlsx) contains the data used to construct the index and rankings, along with research notes and links to state laws. It also includes data from the previous years of the index.Click" last_modified: "2025-07-11T18:44:17+00:00" --- # 2024 Dataset [ ![bw Religious Liberty in the States Report 2024.jpeg](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/wp-content/media/bw-Religious_Liberty_in_the_States_Report-2024.jpeg.jpg) Dataset ## Religious Liberty in the States 2024 This dataset (.xlsx) contains the data used to construct the index and rankings, along with research notes and links to state laws. It also includes data from the previous years of the index.**Click to download XLSX** ](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/Religious_Liberty_in_the_States_Dataset-2024.xlsx) --- --- title: "Codes and Scoring" url: "https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/codes-and-scoring/" lang: "en-US" type: "page" description: "Title This document provides a detailed explanation of the codes and scoring system used in the construction of the 2026 RLS dataset. It is thus recommended as a guide for researchers who are working with the data spreadsheet. The document is" last_modified: "2026-07-08T13:24:39+00:00" custom_fields: iawp_total_views: 192 --- # Codes and Scoring # Title This document provides a detailed explanation of the codes and scoring system used in the construction of the 2026 RLS dataset. It is thus recommended as a guide for researchers who are working with the [data spreadsheet](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/downloads/). The document is structured according to categories (or groups), safeguards, and items. In several cases, a safeguard consists of only one item, but in others it consists of multiple items. Each safeguard is weighted equally. If a safeguard has multiple items, the items are weighted equally. For instance, if a state has three of five items in a safeguard, that state receives credit for three-fifths of that safeguard (whereas if another state has five of five items, it receives full credit). Please see the Dataset Construction appendixes in the [RLS 2022](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/rls-2022-archive/) and [2023](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/rls-2023-archive/) reports for discussion of external sources used when developing RLS and verifying data. _Note: Items marked with an asterisk (*) are new in 2026. Also, the names of some safeguards and items from previous years have been revised to clarify what these safeguards and items measure. _ Table of Contents # Government ## I. Religious Freedom Restoration Act ### 1. Religious Freedom Restoration Act _In 1997, the decision in _City of Boerne v. Flores_ found the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993 unconstitutional as applied to states and therefore only relevant to the federal government. Since then, many states have enacted laws, patterned after the federal RFRA, that emphasize protection from the burden of government action that many recognize can follow from religion-neutral laws._ Federal Context The federal RFRA applies to federal jurisdictions only and so leaves wide open the opportunity for states to address the burdens of their own rules of general applicability. Identifying Codes and Assigning Scores We read each law and coded each state according to whether the law was in the state’s constitution, the state’s statutes, or nonexistent. While some states have claimed that certain court case decisions yield RFRA-like protections for religious entities and individuals, RLS limits its scope to statutory and state constitutional law. Possible Codes - A = RFRA in the state constitution - B = RFRA in state statute - C = No RFRA in the state law Possible Scores - 1 = RFRA in constitution or statute (A, B) - 0 = No RFRA (C) [TOP](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/codes-and-scoring/#top) ## II. Absentee Voting ### 2. Absentee Voting _At times, a religious person may find voting at a polling place on election day conflicts with his or her religious beliefs, for example, due to a religious observance. The absentee voting safeguard protects the ability of an individual to participate in an election at another time or by other means. Among states that require a valid reason for absentee voting, some allow religious observance as an acceptable reason to receive an absentee ballot, while others do not. Some states allow more flexible voting for all voters via all mail-in elections or no-excuse absentee ballots._ Federal Context The federal government has not enacted any notable rule dictating election practice. Possible Codes - A = State has all-mail elections - B = State permits no-excuse absentee voting - C = Religion is a valid reason to receive an absentee ballot - D = Religion is not an acceptable reason to receive an absentee ballot/Cannot vote absentee for religious reasons Possible Scores - 1 = Those with religious reasons have alternatives available that would facilitate absentee voting (A, B, and C) - 0 = There is no recourse for religious concerns in absentee voting (D) [TOP](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/codes-and-scoring/#top) ## III. Nonparticipation in Weddings by Public Officials ### 3. Nonparticipation in Weddings by Public Officials _All states authorize government officials to solemnize, celebrate, and/or license marriages in their state. This safeguard captures religious exemptions by states for public officials who have religious objections to participating in licensing or solemnizing same-sex marriages._ Federal Context The Supreme Court’s _Obergefell v. Hodges_ (2015) decision recognized a right to legal recognition of same-sex marriages. The federal Respect for Marriage Act (2022) (RFMA) provides religious exemptions from what would otherwise appear its implications. As explained in section 3 of the RLS 2023 report, RFMA has no practical impact on what states can effectively safeguard in this space. _Obergefell _requires all states to recognize same-sex marriage, so whether states recognize same-sex marriage as a matter of statutory law does not impact religious liberty protections. Nevertheless, because previous RLS reports tracked which states have laws recognizing same-sex marriage, we continue to track changes in this area. Missing Data We rely on the area of each state’s code in specifying who can legally perform a marriage to indicate the approximate location of any rights of recusal/refusal and on reading widely in the proximate area to seek out those allowances in cases where the external sources suggest there are none. It is noteworthy that some states that do not prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation responded to _Obergefell v. Hodges_ (2015) by legislating safeguards for various entities in the areas of marriage and weddings. This safeguard/item tracks whether there are safeguards for government officials (who license and/or solemnize marriages) to recuse themselves if it violates their personal religious beliefs. Possible Codes - A = State statutory law recognizes same-sex marriage and includes safeguards for public official recusal - B = State statutory law recognizes same-sex marriage and includes no safeguards for public official recusal - C = State statutory law does not reflect the federal recognition of same-sex marriage but the state includes safeguards for public official recusal - D = State statutory law does not reflect the federal recognition of same-sex marriage and includes no safeguards for public official recusal Possible Scores - 1 = State safeguards public official recusal (A, C) - 0 = State does not safeguard public official recusal (B, D) [TOP](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/codes-and-scoring/#top) # Health Care _Federal law protects employees, including health-care providers, from religious discrimination. Additionally, federal law contains many conscience protections for health-care professionals (i.e., individuals) and health-care institutions (e.g., hospitals) who object to participating in certain health services. Many states safeguard free exercise in health-care provision even more broadly. This category includes a safeguard for the handful of states who provide general conscience protection for health-care providers as well as measures of conscience protections in reproductive services specifically. Within these specific services, states exhibit variation in who has the right to refuse, from what negative consequences the entity is safeguarded, and whether there are limitations to those safeguards._ Federal Context The [Church](https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/ocr/civilrights/understanding/ConscienceProtect/42usc300a7.pdf), [Weldon](https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/ocr/civilrights/understanding/ConscienceProtect/publaw111_117_123_stat_3034.pdf), and [Coats-Snowe](https://www.regent.edu/app/uploads/2020/06/CA2-Amicus-of-Coats-Weldon-NY-v-HHS.pdf) Amendments deny federal funding to entities who discriminate against those who refuse to participate in abortion, sterilization, or contraception. RLS, therefore, focuses on a range of other potential protections including civil immunity, criminal immunity, and protection from other state-level government action (e.g., licensure and state funding). [TOP](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/codes-and-scoring/#top) ## IV. General Conscience Protection ### 4. General Conscience Protection State safeguards health-care providers (individuals) and health-care institutions in their right to decline to provide medical care procedures based on conscience. Possible Codes - A = State provides an open-ended conscience protection for health-care providers and health-care institutions - B = State provides a general conscience protection for health-care providers only - C = State does not provide an open-ended conscience protection for health-care providers and health-care institutions Possible Scores - 1 = State provides an open-ended conscience protection for health-care providers and health-care institutions (A) - 0 = State does not provide an open-ended conscience protection for health-care providers and health-care institutions (B, C) [TOP](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/codes-and-scoring/#top) ## V.  Abortion Refusal (eight items) ### 5. Individual-Level Abortion Refusal Medical professionals (e.g., doctors, physicians, nurses, and hospital staff) are safeguarded in their right to refuse to participate in abortions. Possible Codes - A = State does not allow any conscience protections for abortion - B = State allows some conscience protections in abortion but not for individual providers - C = State allows conscience protections in abortion for individual providers - D = State prohibits all abortions except to save the life of the mother Possible Scores - 1 = State safeguards at least one type of individual health-care provider’s right of refusal from performing or participating in any part of abortion procedures (C, D) - 0 = State does not safeguard individual health-care providers’ right of refusal from performing or participating in any part of abortion procedures (A, B) ### 6. Private Hospital Abortion Refusal Private hospitals are permitted to refuse to participate in abortion. Possible Codes - A = State does not allow any conscience protections for abortion - B = State allows some conscience protections in abortion but not for private hospitals - C = State allows conscience protections in abortion for private hospitals - D = State prohibits all abortions except to save the life of the mother Possible Scores - 1 = State safeguards private hospitals’ right of refusal from performing or participating in any part of abortion procedures (C, D) - 0 = State does not safeguard private hospitals’ right of refusal from performing or participating in any part of abortion procedures (A, B) ### 7. Public Hospital Abortion Refusal Public hospitals are permitted to refuse to participate in abortion. Possible Codes - A = State does not allow any conscience protections for abortion - B = State allows some conscience protections in abortion but not for public hospitals - C = State allows conscience protections in abortion for public hospitals - D = State prohibits all abortions except to save the life of the mother Possible Scores - 1 = State safeguards public hospitals’ right of refusal from performing or participating in any part of abortion procedures (C, D) - 0 = State does not safeguard public hospitals’ right of refusal from performing or participating in any part of abortion procedures (A, B) ### 8. Immunity from Civil Liability (Abortion) State precludes civil liability claims against at least one safeguarded entity in abortion procedures. Possible Codes - A = State does not allow any conscience protections for abortion - B = State allows some conscience protections in abortion but does not preclude civil liabilities due to refusal - C = State allows conscience protections in abortion and specifically precludes civil liabilities - D = State prohibits all abortions except to save the life of the mother Possible Scores - 1 = State precludes civil liability claims against at least one safeguarded entity in abortion refusal protections (C, D) - 0 = State does not preclude civil liability claims against any entity in abortion refusal protections (A, B) ### 9. Immunity from Criminal Liability (Abortion) State precludes criminal prosecution of at least one safeguarded entity in abortion procedures. Possible Codes - A = State does not allow any conscience protections for abortion - B = State allows some conscience protections in abortion but does not protect against criminal prosecution - C = State allows conscience protections in abortion and protects against criminal prosecution - D = State prohibits all abortions except to save the life of the mother Possible Scores - 1 = State precludes criminal prosecution against at least one safeguarded entity in abortion refusal protections (C, D) - 0 = State does not preclude criminal prosecution against any entity in abortion refusal protections (A, B) ### 10. Protection from Government Consequences (Abortion) State limits its ability to impose repercussions (e.g., loss of license, loss of funding, action by an administrative agency or the state) on at least one safeguarded entity in abortion procedures. Possible Codes - A = State does not allow any conscience protections for abortion - B = State allows some conscience protections in abortion but does not protect against government action - C = State allows conscience protections in abortion for health-care providers and protects against government action - D = State prohibits all abortions except to save the life of the mother Possible Scores - 1 = State precludes government action against at least one safeguarded entity in abortion refusal protections (C, D) - 0 = State does not preclude government action against any entity in abortion refusal protections (A, B) ### 11. Refusal in Emergency (Abortion) State protects health-care providers from being forced to participate in abortions even in medical emergencies. _Note_: States may regulate conscience protections in other ways, for example, by requiring referral or documentation of a policy of refusal. We selected this measure among potential limitations to the refusal right for its ease of identification and so as to avoid the question of whether having to declare in advance one’s conscience concern, for example, is a restriction on religious exercise or an inconvenience. Possible Codes - A = State does not allow any conscience protections for abortion - B = State allows some conscience protections but limits those in the case of patient emergency - C = State allows conscience protections for health-care providers and does not limit those in emergencies Possible Scores - 1 = State does not limit the abortion refusal safeguards in the case of medical emergencies (C) - 0 = State does limit the abortion refusal safeguards in the case of medical emergencies (A, B) ### 12. Disposal of Abortion Remains* State protects any employee of a facility in which an abortion may be performed from being required to handle or dispose of aborted remains if that individual objects to such procedures for religious reasons. - A = State does not allow any conscience protections for abortion - B = State ensures that no employee may be forced to dispose of abortion remains - D = State prohibits all abortions except to save the life of the mother _Note_: we have kept the code for prohibiting abortion “D” for consistency. It is possible that an employee with religious objections to disposing of abortion remains in a state that permits only emergency abortions might be asked to dispose of abortion remains, but this possibility seems so slim that we give a state credit for B or D. Possible Scores - 1 = State protects any employee of a facility in which an abortion may be performed from being required to handle or dispose of aborted remains or bans abortions (B or D) - 0 = State does not protect any employee of a facility in which an abortion may be performed from being required to handle or dispose of aborted remains (A) [TOP](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/codes-and-scoring/#top) ## VI. Sterilization Refusal (six items) ### 13. Individual-Level Sterilization Refusal At least some individuals (physicians, nurses, and/or hospital staff) are safeguarded in their right to refuse to participate in sterilization. Possible Codes - A = State does not allow any conscience protections for sterilization - B = State allows some conscience protections in sterilization but not for individual providers - C = State allows conscience protections in sterilization for individual health-care providers Possible Scores - 1 = State safeguards at least one group of individual health-care providers’ right of refusal from performing or participating in any part of sterilization procedures (C) - 0 = State does not safeguard individual health-care providers’ right of refusal from performing or participating in sterilization procedures (A, B) ### 14. Private Hospital Sterilization Refusal Private hospitals are permitted to refuse to participate in sterilization. Possible Code - A = State does not allow any conscience protections for sterilization - B = State allows some conscience protections in sterilization but not for private hospitals - C = State allows conscience protections in sterilization for private hospitals Possible Scores - 1 = State safeguards private hospitals’ right of refusal from performing or participating in any part of sterilization procedures (C) - 0 = State does not safeguard private hospitals’ right of refusal from performing or participating in any part of sterilization procedures (A, B) ### 15.  Public Hospital Sterilization Refusal Public hospitals are permitted to refuse to participate in sterilization. Possible Code - A = State does not allow any conscience protections for sterilization - B = State allows some conscience protections in sterilization but not for public hospitals - C = State allows conscience protections in sterilization for public hospitals Possible Scores - 1 = State safeguards public hospitals’ right of refusal from performing or participating in any part of sterilization procedures (C) - 0 = State does not safeguard public hospitals’ right of refusal from performing or participating in any part of sterilization procedures (A, B) ### 16. Immunity from Civil Liability (Sterilization) State precludes civil liability claims against at least one safeguarded entity in sterilization procedures. Possible Codes - A = State does not allow any conscience protections for sterilization - B = State allows some conscience protections in sterilization but does not preclude civil liabilities due to refusal - C = State allows conscience protections in sterilization and specifically precludes civil liabilities due to refusal Possible Scores - 1 = State precludes civil liability claims against at least one safeguarded entity in sterilization refusal protections (C) - 0 = State does not preclude civil liability claims against any entity in sterilization refusal protections (A, B) ### 17. Immunity from Criminal Liability (Sterilization) State precludes criminal prosecution of at least one safeguarded entity in sterilization procedures. Possible Codes - A = State does not allow any conscience protections for sterilization - B = State allows some conscience protections in sterilization but does not protect against criminal prosecution - C = State allows conscience protections in sterilization for health-care providers and protects against criminal prosecution Possible Scores - 1 = State precludes criminal prosecution against at least one safeguarded entity in sterilization refusal protections (C) - 0 = State does not preclude criminal prosecution against any entity in sterilization refusal protections (A, B) ### 18. Protection from Government Consequences (Sterilization) State limits its ability to impose repercussions on at least one safeguarded entity in sterilization procedures. Possible Codes - A = State does not allow any conscience protections for sterilization - B = State allows some conscience protections in sterilization but does not protect against government action - C = State allows conscience protections in sterilization for health-care providers and protects against government action Possible Scores - 1 = State precludes government action against at least one safeguarded entity in sterilization refusal protections (C) - 0 = State does not preclude government action against any entity in sterilization refusal protections (A, B) [TOP](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/codes-and-scoring/#top) ## VII. Contraception Refusal (six items) ### 19. Individual-Level Contraception Refusal At least some individuals (physicians, nurses, and/or hospital staff) are safeguarded in their right to refuse to participate in contraceptive procedures or the distribution of contraceptives. Possible Codes - A = State does not allow any conscience protections for contraception - B = State allows some conscience protections in contraception but not for individual practitioners - C = State allows conscience protections in contraception for health-care providers and specifically for individual practitioners - D = State only mentions public or public grant-based family planning services in its statutes about contraceptives Possible Scores - 1 = State safeguards at least one group of individual health-care providers’ right of refusal from participating in the distribution of contraceptives (C) - 0 = State does not safeguard individual health-care providers’ right of refusal from participating in the distribution of contraceptives (A, B, D) ### 20. Private Hospital Contraception Refusal Private hospitals are permitted to refuse to participate in contraceptive procedures or the distribution of contraceptives. Possible Codes - A = State does not allow any conscience protections for contraception - B = State allows some conscience protections in contraception but not for private hospitals - C = State allows conscience protections in contraception for health-care providers and specifically for private hospitals - D = State only mentions public or public grant-based family planning services in its statutes about contraceptives Possible Scores - 1 = State safeguards private hospitals’ right of refusal from participating in the distribution of contraceptives (C) - 0 = State does not safeguard private hospitals’ right of refusal from participating in the distribution of contraceptives (A, B, D) ### 21. Public Hospital Contraception Refusal Public hospitals are permitted to refuse to participate in contraceptive procedures or the distribution of contraceptives. Possible Codes - A = State does not allow any conscience protections for contraception - B = State allows some conscience protections in contraception but not for public hospitals - C = State allows conscience protections in contraception for health-care providers and specifically for public hospitals - D = State only mentions public or public grant-based family planning services in its statutes about contraceptives Possible Scores - 1 = State safeguards public hospitals’ right of refusal from participating in the distribution of contraceptives (C) - 0 = State does not safeguard public hospitals’ right of refusal from participating in the distribution of contraceptives (A, B, D) ### 22. Immunity from Civil Liability (Contraception) State precludes civil liability claims against at least one safeguarded entity in contraceptive procedures or the distribution of contraceptives. Possible Codes - A = State does not allow any conscience protections for contraception - B = State allows some conscience protections in contraception but does not preclude civil liabilities due to refusal - C = State allows conscience protections in contraception and specifically precludes civil liabilities due to refusal - D = State only mentions public or public grant-based family planning services in its statutes about contraception and does not include civil liability protections Possible Scores - 1 = State precludes civil liability claims against at least one safeguarded entity in contraception refusal protections (C) - 0 = State does not preclude civil liability claims against any entity in contraception refusal protections (A, B, D) ### 23. Immunity from Criminal Liability (Contraception) State precludes criminal prosecution of at least one safeguarded entity in contraceptive procedures or the distribution of contraceptives. Possible Codes - A = State does not allow any conscience protections in contraception - B = State allows some conscience protections in contraception but does not protect against criminal prosecution - C = State allows conscience protections in contraception for health-care providers and protects against criminal prosecution - D = State only mentions public or public grant-based family planning services in its statutes about contraception and does not include protection against criminal prosecution Possible Scores - 1 = State precludes criminal prosecution against at least one safeguarded entity in contraception refusal protections (C) - 0 = State does not preclude criminal prosecution against any entity in contraception refusal protections (A, B, D) ### 24. Protection from Government Consequences (Contraception) State limits its ability to impose repercussions on at least one safeguarded entity in contraceptive procedures or the distribution of contraceptives. Possible Codes - A = State does not allow any conscience protections in contraception - B = State allows some conscience protections in contraception but does not protect against government action - C = State allows conscience protections in contraception for health-care providers and protects against government action - D = State only mentions public or public grant-based family planning services in its statutes about contraception and does not include protections against government action Possible Scores - 1 = State precludes government action against at least one safeguarded entity in contraception refusal protections (C) - 0 = State does not preclude government action against any entity in contraception refusal protections (A, B, D) [TOP](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/codes-and-scoring/#top) ## VIII. Euthanasia Refusal ### 25. Euthanasia Refusal State permits health care providers to decline to participate in euthanasia if they have religious objections to doing so. Possible Codes - A = State explicitly protects the right of a health-care professional to refuse to perform euthanasia based on conscientious objection - B = State grants broad protection to the right of conscientious objection to health-care professionals that encompasses euthanasia - C = State does not protect the right of a health-care professional to refuse to perform euthanasia based on conscientious objection Possible Scores - 1 = State permits health-care providers to decline to participate in euthanasia if they have religious objections to doing so (A, B) - 0 = State does not permit health-care providers to decline to participate in euthanasia if they have religious objections to doing so (C) [TOP](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/codes-and-scoring/#top) ## IX. Recusal of Counseling Provider (two items) ### 26. Right to Opt Out of Mental Counseling Protects counselors or therapists from being required to counsel or serve a client as to goals, outcomes, or behaviors that conflict with their sincerely held principles. Possible Codes - A = State law specifically protects therapists and counselors - B = State has a general conscience protection that covers therapists and counselors - C = No state law protects therapists and counselors Possible Scores - 1 = State protects therapists and counselors (A, B) - 0 = State does not protect therapists and counselors (C) ### 27. Right to Opt Out of Genetic Counseling* State law protects therapists and counselors from having to engage in genetic couseling that violates their sincerely held religious convictions. Possible Codes - A = State law specifically protects therapists and counselors from having to engage in genetic counseling - B = State has a general conscience protection that covers genetic counseling - C = No state law protects therapists and counselors Possible Scores - 1 = State protects genetic counselors (A, B) - 0 = State does not protect genetic counselors (C) [TOP](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/codes-and-scoring/#top) ## X. Health Insurance Mandates (three items) _The Affordable Care Act (ACA) mandates that health-insurance coverage include contraceptives, exempting houses of worship from this requirement. In 2018, _[_the Trump administration enacted a rule_](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2018-11-15/pdf/2018-24512.pdf)_ allowing more employers with religious and moral objections to opt out of health-insurance coverage of contraceptives, and this rule was upheld in 2020 in the _Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania _decision. This safeguard captures whether states maintain the existing exempt space for religious employers, either by having no state-level insurance contraception mandate or by offering either a narrow or a broad exemption. As well, we consider state mandates and protections with respect to abortion and sterilization._ Federal Context States cannot expand religious exemptions to federal mandates but can effectively narrow the federally provided religious exemption if there is a state-level mandate that makes no religious exemptions or reduces those who are eligible for it. Identifying Codes and Assigning Scores We read each state’s law(s) assigning codes according to mandates (if any) that exist, the exemptions (if any) that apply to that mandate, and the extent to which that exemption is applicable to employers (as opposed to insurance carriers). ### 28. Exemption from Contraception Mandate Possible Codes - A = No state contraception mandate - B = State has contraception mandate and makes no exemptions for employers - C = State has contraception mandate and exempts only religious entities - D = State has contraception mandate and has broad exemptions Possible Scores - 1 = No contraception mandate or mandate and broad exemptions (A, D) - .5 = State has mandate and only narrow exemptions (C) - 0 = State has mandate and no exemptions (B) ### 29. Exemption from Abortion Mandate Possible Codes - A = No state abortion mandate - B = State has abortion mandate and makes no exemptions for employers - C = State has abortion mandate and narrow religious exemptions - D = State has abortion mandate and has broad exemptions Possible Scores - 1 = No abortion mandate or mandate and broad exemptions (A, D) - .5 = State has mandate and narrow religious exemptions (C) - 0 = State has mandate and no exemptions (B) ### 30. Exemption from Sterilization Mandate Possible Codes - A = No state sterilization mandate - B = State has sterilization mandate and makes no exemptions for employers - C = State has sterilization mandate and narrow religious exemptions - D = State has sterilization mandate and has broad exemptions Possible Scores - 1 = No sterilization or mandate and broad exemptions (A, D) - .5 = State has mandate and narrow religious exemptions (C) - 0 = State has mandate and no exemptions (B) [TOP](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/codes-and-scoring/#top) # Economic Life ## XI. Nonparticipation in Economic Arrangements (two items) ### 31. For-Profit Business Nonparticipation in Wedding Ceremonies For-profit businesses that provide goods or services for marriage ceremonies or wedding celebrations are safeguarded against having to participate in marriages or weddings that violate personally held religious or moral beliefs of the business or business owner. Possible Codes - A = State statutory law recognizes same-sex marriage and includes safeguards for a nonparticipating for-profit business - B = State statutory law recognizes same-sex marriage and includes no safeguards for a nonparticipating for-profit business - C = State statutory law does not reflect the federal recognition of same-sex marriage but the state includes safeguards for a nonparticipating for-profit business - D = State statutory law does not reflect the federal recognition of same-sex marriage and includes no safeguards for a nonparticipating for-profit business Possible Scores - 1 = State safeguards a nonparticipating for-profit business (A, C) - 0 = State does not safeguard a nonparticipating for-profit business (B, D) ### 32. Nonparticipation in Union Membership* Some citizens, notably Seventh Day Adventists, have religious objections to joining labor unions. States may specifically protect the ability of individuals to decline to join labor unions for religious reasons. In right-to-work states, no citizen can be forced to join a union, and so religious objectors are protected from being compelled to do so. Possible Codes - A = Workers with religious objections to joining unions are specifically protected by law from having to join them - B = State is a right-to-work state - C = Workers with religious objections to joining unions are unprotected by state law Possible Scores - 1 = Workers with religious objections to joining unions are protected by law from having to join them (A, B) - 0 = Workers with religious objections to joining unions are unprotected by law (C) [TOP](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/codes-and-scoring/#top) ## XII. No Religious Discrimination in Financial Services/Insurance Provision (two items) ### 33. Insurance Companies Prohibited from Denying Access No code. State has protection or it doesn’t. Possible Scores - 1 = State prohibits insurance companies from denying access to services due to religious beliefs - 0 = State does not prohibit insurance companied from denying access to services due to religious beliefs ### 34. Financial Institutions Prohibited from Denying Access No code. State has protection or it doesn’t. Possible Scores - 1 = State prohibits financial institutions from denying access to services due to religious beliefs - 0 = State does not prohibit financial institutions from denying access to services due to religious beliefs [TOP](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/codes-and-scoring/#top) # Religious Life ## XIII. Clergy-Penitent Privilege Protected ### 35. Clergy-Penitent Privilege Protected _The federal government specifies a minimum set of actions that are considered child abuse and neglect but does not set a standard for reporting responsibilities. All states include mandatory reporting laws within child welfare laws, often enumerating categories of individuals who must report child abuse. This safeguard captures whether or not the state protects the right of clergy to maintain confidentiality by either excluding clergy from the group of mandatory reporters or by exempting clergy from the mandate when information is obtained through penitential or otherwise confidential clerical communication._ Federal Context The federal [Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA)](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2010-title42/html/USCODE-2010-title42-chap67.htm) (42 USCA 5106g) sets a minimum for the actions (or non-actions) considered child abuse or neglect but does not indicate a set of mandatory reporters. At the state level, laws can expand what is considered child abuse or neglect and specifically name groups of individuals who are required to report information that suggests instances of child abuse or neglect. All states have child abuse laws that define mandatory reporters. Some enumerate groups of individuals (teachers, physicians, child-care workers, etc.) while others indicate that “any person” is responsible for reporting when a child is involved. Identifying Codes and Assigning Scores We read each state law to determine if clergy are included as mandatory reporters, either with mandates that apply universally (e.g., “all persons,” “any individual”) or with clergy enumerated within a list of mandatory reporters. We then identified whether penitential communication or communication with clergy under the expectation of confidentially is exempted from laws mandating reports of child abuse and neglect, even if clergy are otherwise mandatory reporters (for example, in situations where they learn of child abuse outside of a role as confessor or, to adopt the language of the Federal Rules of Evidence, in a context other than “his professional character as a spiritual adviser”). Some states privilege communication between clergy and congregants in rules of evidence within state statutes or elsewhere. To qualify as safeguarding for this item, though, RLS requires that not only are clergy not required to testify or provide information in courts but that they are under no mandate to report to any public authority, so long as the original communication was understood to be confidential. Some states reference rules of evidence or court procedures to help define what sorts of clergy-penitent communication is exempted from mandatory reporting, say, by referencing definitions given in rules of evidence but within the mandatory reporting laws. Other states mention such privilege only in the rules for courts and make no reference to a broader implication of the same for legal mandates by the state outside of the courts (e.g., mandatory reporting). One state (Illinois) privileges penitential communication within the rules of evidence in terms that explicitly establish that clergy “shall not be compelled to disclose in any court, or to any administrative board or agency, or to any public officer, a confession or admission made to him or her in his or her professional character” (735 ILCS 5/8-803). Most exemptions in this safeguard are provided within the mandatory reporting laws themselves. These are the clearest cases of safeguarding, and, in general, RLS finds that a privilege that only addresses disclosure in court proceedings falls short of guaranteeing the fullness of confidentiality as required by many religions for their clergy. Possible Codes - A = “Any person” is a mandatory reporter and clergy are exempted at least in some professional capacity - B = “Any person” is a mandatory reporter and clergy are not exempted - C = Clergy are enumerated as mandatory reporters and are exempted at least in some professional capacity - D = Clergy are enumerated as mandatory reporters and are not exempted - E = Mandatory reporters are enumerated and clergy are not included but receive an explicit exemption at least in some professional capacity - F = Mandatory reporters are enumerated, clergy are not included and receive no explicit exemption Possible Scores - 1 = State protects penitential communication in mandatory reporting laws (A, C, E, F) - 0 = State does not protect penitential communication in mandatory reporting laws (B, D) [TOP](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/codes-and-scoring/#top) ## XIV. Ceremonial Use of Alcohol by Minors (two items) _In many religious ceremonies, including Communion, Eucharistic celebrations, and Kiddush ceremonies, the ability of a religious leader to offer some form of alcohol and the ability of the religious adherent to receive it are both required by the spiritual act/rite. This safeguard captures whether a state allows clergy to furnish alcohol to underage individuals and whether the underage individual can legally consume alcohol during religious rites and ceremonies. Some states do not allow any exceptions from minor legal drinking age laws (MLDA). Of the states that do allow exemptions from MLDA laws, some states allow exceptions for religious ceremonies or parental consent while others do not. Some states extend these exceptions in ways that safeguard the religious liberty of clergy, minor religious adherents, or both._ _Ten states have an exception for religious ceremonies with respect to either furnishment or consumption but not both. While this may seem illogical, RLS records these codes according to the letter of the law, making apparent the opportunity that exists for reconciling the laws in these states to further safeguard religious individuals. _ Federal Context In order to receive federal funds, [states must maintain a ](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/23/158)[minimum ](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/23/158)[age of 21 years](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/23/158) for both the purchase and the public possession of alcohol. Notably, and critically for this safeguard, federal law does not make requirements on states with respect to furnishing broadly understood, which would include dissemination of alcohol by clergy in a religious ceremony, or consumption, which would include consumption by minors within ceremonies. All states comply with the federal requirement but may make exceptions to their own laws about furnishing and consumption for a variety of reasons, including parental discretion and consent, learning opportunities for culinary students, medical treatment, and participation in religious ceremonies. Identifying Coding and Assigning Scores: A Note about Parents Many states have some form of exception to MLDA laws when parents are involved. Parental consent or furnishment/consumption “in the presence” of a parent gives more opportunity for clergy and young religious adherents than does stating only that parents can “give” or furnish alcohol. Still, some “underage” people with respect to MLDA are older than the age of majority, and one might argue should have unmediated (by parents) free exercise of religion. If the MLDA laws and the age of majority named the same age, RLS could simply choose to not take a stance on whether parental mediation was consistent with liberty or not. (Children’s liberty is often constrained by parental consent.) Setting this aside, it is still unclear whether laws that allow parents to “give” underage children alcohol allows the distribution of sacramental wine by clergy. We, therefore, in the two items below, reflect the variation in state laws with respect to a parent’s role but score this safeguard to indicate that allowing parents an exemption is not synonymous with an exemption for clergy or religious youth. Missing Data Oklahoma [does not generally prohibit the private consumption of alcohol by minors](https://alcoholpolicy.niaaa.nih.gov/underage-drinking/state-profiles/oklahoma/88#:~:text=Underage%20Drinking%3A%20Underage%20Possession%20of%20Alcohol&text=In%20Oklahoma%2C%20persons%20under%20twenty,of%20their%20parent%20or%20guardian.), but does restrict the public possession and purchase of alcohol by minors, and prohibits furnishing alcohol to minors. Oklahoma only explicitly prohibits the public possession of alcoholic beverages with more than 3.2 percent ABV and low-point beer [(§2-8-222)](https://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=470912). ### 36. Furnishment to Minors This item indicates if a state allows exceptions for religious leaders to dispense/furnish alcohol to minors for religious reasons. Identifying Codes and Assigning Scores The research team read each state law concerning furnishing alcohol to underage individuals by those over 21. We then identified if the state allowed any exceptions to these laws and, if so, whether the exceptions were extended to religious leaders directly (e.g., by granting an exception in the context of religious ceremonies). Possible Codes - A = State offers exceptions for furnishing to minors in religious ceremonies or for religious reasons - B = State offers no exception for religious ceremonies but makes exceptions for furnishing to minors with parental involvement - C = State does not offer exceptions for furnishing in religious ceremonies or by parents Possible Scores - 1 = State makes an exception for furnishing to minors in religious ceremonies (A) - 0 = State does not have exceptions that allow legally furnishing alcohol to minors in religious ceremonies (B, C) ### 37. Consumption by Minors This item indicates if a state allows exceptions for minors to consume or possess alcohol for religious reasons. Identifying Codes and Assigning Scores The research team read each state law concerning exceptions to underage consumption or possession of alcohol, identified if the state allowed any exceptions to these laws and, if so, whether the exceptions were extended to minors directly (e.g., by granting an exception in the context of religious ceremonies). Possible Codes - A = State offers exceptions to minors for religious reasons - B = State offers no exception to minors related to religious reasons but does allow consumption with parental consent - C = State does not offer exceptions to minors for either religious reasons or with parental consent Possible Scores - 1 = State makes an exception for consumption by minors in religious ceremonies (A) - 0 = State does not offer an exception for consumption by minors in religious ceremonies (B, C) [TOP](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/codes-and-scoring/#top) ## XV. Houses of Worship Protected from Closing ### 38. Houses of Worship Protected from Closing _In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, states began passing statutes that prohibit governments from treating houses of worship differently than similarly situated businesses._ Federal Context There is no relevant federal context. Identifying Coding and Assigning Scores The research team read each state law concerning the state government’s ability to close houses of worship during a pandemic or other emergency. Possible Codes - A = State has statute protecting houses of worship - B = State has no statute protecting houses of worship Possible Scores - 1 = State has statute protecting houses of worship (A) - 0 = State has no statute protecting houses of worship (B) [TOP](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/codes-and-scoring/#top) ## XVI. Nonparticipation in Weddings by Clergy ### 39. Nonparticipation in Weddings by Clergy Some states protect the ability of clergy to decline to participate in marriages to which they have religious objections, whereas others do not explicitly protect their ability to decline. Possible Codes - A = State statutory law recognizes same-sex marriage and includes safeguards for clergy - B = State statutory law recognizes same-sex marriage and includes no safeguards for clergy - C = State statutory law does not reflect the federal recognition of same-sex marriage but the state includes safeguards for clergy - D = State statutory law does not reflect the federal recognition of same-sex marriage and includes no safeguards for clergy Possible Scores - 1 = State safeguards clergy’s right to refusal (A, C) - 0 = State does not safeguard clergy’s right to refusal (B, D) [TOP](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/codes-and-scoring/#top) ## XVII. Religious Entity Refusal to Participate in Weddings (three items) ### 40. Nonparticipation by Religious Organizations Religious organizations, including religious-controlled organizations and religious nonprofits, often facilitate or host marriage and wedding celebrations. This item characterizes whether there are any safeguards for these organizations to refuse solemnization, participation, celebration, or facilitation of marriages that violate the religious tenets of the organization. Possible Codes - A = State statutory law recognizes same-sex marriage and includes safeguards for religious organizations - B = State statutory law recognizes same-sex marriage and includes no safeguards for religious organizations - C = State statutory law does not reflect the federal recognition of same-sex marriage but the state includes safeguards for religious organizations - D = State statutory law does not reflect the federal recognition of same-sex marriage and includes no safeguards for religious organizations Possible Scores - 1 = State safeguards religious organizations’ right to refusal (A, C) - 0 = State does not safeguard religious organizations’ right to refusal (B, D) ### 41. Explicit Protection of Tax-Exempt Status Some states explicitly guarantee that a religious organization’s tax-exempt status cannot be revoked if it refuses to participate in a same-sex marriage. Possible Codes - A = State statutory law recognizes same-sex marriage and protects tax-exempt status - B = State statutory law recognizes same-sex marriage and does not protect tax-exempt status - C = State statutory law does not reflect the federal recognition of same-sex marriage but the state includes protection of tax-exempt status - D = State statutory law does not reflect the federal recognition of same-sex marriage and does not include protection of tax-exempt status Possible Scores - 1 = State protects tax exempt status (A, C) - 0 = State does not protect tax exempt status (B, D) ### 42. Protections from Government Penalties Beyond Tax-Exempt Status This indicator reflects whether a state’s law ensures that a wide range of government repercussions will not follow from exercising the granted religious exemption. Possible Codes - A = State statutory law recognizes same-sex marriage and precludes a wide range of public penalties - B = State statutory law recognizes same-sex marriage and state does not mention what penalties are proscribed or goes no further than protecting tax-exempt status - C = State statutory law does not reflect the federal recognition of same-sex marriage but precludes a wide range of public penalties - D = State statutory law does not reflect the federal recognition of same-sex marriage and the state does not mention what penalties are proscribed or goes no further than protecting tax-exempt status Possible Scores - 1 = State precludes a wide range of public penalties (A, C) - 0 = State does not preclude a wide range of public penalties (B, D) [TOP](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/codes-and-scoring/#top) # Family and Education ## XVIII. Immunization Requirement Exemption ### 43. Immunization Requirement Exemption _All states maintain compulsory education laws and require immunization of school-aged children. This safeguard reflects whether exemptions to immunization requirements are available for religious reasons._ Federal Context There is no relevant federal rule regarding childhood immunization requirements. Identifying Codes and Assigning Scores We read each law and coded each state’s law according to the type of exemption (or lack of exemption) the law allows. RLS operates from an understanding (made explicit in some states’ laws) that philosophical concerns are inclusive of religious beliefs. Therefore, if a state allows for broader philosophical exemptions, it provides exemption for one’s religious beliefs. Possible Codes - A = State allows religious beliefs as a reason for exemption from childhood immunization - B = State allows exemption broader than religious (e.g., personal, philosophical, or moral beliefs) as an acceptable reason for exemption from childhood immunization - C = State does not allow nonmedical exemption (religious, personal, philosophical, or moral beliefs) as an acceptable reason for exemption from childhood immunizations Possible Scores - 1 = State makes exemptions from immunization for nonmedical reasons (e.g., religious, philosophical, personal belief) (A, B) - 0 = State makes no nonmedical exemptions (C) [TOP](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/codes-and-scoring/#top) ## XIX. School Protections (six items) _All states maintain compulsory education laws. These items consider whether public schools are required (a)_ _to grant excused absences to students for religious reasons, (b) to permit parents to opt children out of sexual education, and (c) permit student athletes to wear faith-related attire._ Federal Context While the First Amendment and [other federal laws](https://www.ed.gov/media/document/2026-guidance-constitutionally-protected-prayer-and-religious-expression-public-elementary-and-secondary-schools-113182.pdf) broadly protect student religious speech and private action, states legislate in a few areas regarding other types of student religious exercise. One of these areas of discretion is whether an absence due to religious observances or religious instruction (lessons, schooling, or confirmation classes) qualifies as an excused absence from school. All states have set standards describing the expectations and requirements for compulsory attendance of public-school children, and some have a list of excuses that count as lawful absences. If a student is limited to a certain number of unexcused absences, the student and his or her guardian may be subject to the consequences of truancy by the state. Identifying Codes and Assigning Scores The research team used an internet search and general survey of state statutes to locate the area of state law where laws concerning compulsory attendance for public school children exist. In addition to identifying each state’s compulsory schooling law and any exceptions from it, we accessed the website of each state’s education department, board of education (only two state boards of education, Connecticut and Georgia, require all public schools to grant excused absences for religious observance), or the like to locate any references to administrative or regulatory law that could serve as a substitute to statutory provisions. Where statutory law is even the least bit unclear about whether there is state-level authority to define “excused absences” beyond the statutes, the notes columns of the public dataset include links to the education department website or an authoritative document therein to further corroborate our coding decisions. The research team carefully read each state’s compulsory schooling laws with particular interest in lists of exceptions. If excused or lawful absences were specified, we noted whether absences due to religious observances and/or religious instructions were among them. Moreover, we took special care to observe whether a state requires schools/districts (e.g., “a school shall grant”) or permits schools/districts (e.g., “a district may allow”) to provide religious excuses. This distinction is important for RLS, which measures safeguards in the form of states removing artificial barriers of free exercise, artificial barriers of their own making. Since state compulsory schooling laws are potential barriers to the free exercise of religion, unless states prohibit local schools and districts from leveraging that power over religious people-that is, unless they require that religious reasons constitute an excused absence-they are not safeguarding citizens’ free-exercise rights. In short, permitting but not requiring excused absences for religious reasons is not sufficient. We assigned codes to each law according to whether students are afforded excused absences for religious observances and/or religious lessons. Verifying Data We verified the data and scores for this safeguard by rereading each state’s compulsory schooling laws and completing a careful search of the websites of state-level education entities. The research team verified which reasons qualify as an excused absence in each state and recorded whether a state included religious observances (e.g., holidays, practices) and/or religious lessons (e.g., confirmation classes, religious instruction) as relevant excuses. Missing Data While all states have compulsory attendance laws for public school students, it is difficult to establish that we’ve found all absence-related information that is binding at the state level. Since there is no external source for this data, the research team tried to locate a state-level document or website page that corroborates the assessment of each state that received a score 0 for any item in this safeguard. If a state statute explicitly grants authority to local school districts or a local school board to define excused absences, it is unlikely that we are able to find a state-level link that expands meaningfully on the authoritative statute. In cases where a document could not be found, we direct interested users to the education-governing entity’s website for the state. ### 44. Public K-12 Students Excused for Religious Observance This item indicates if a student absence due to religious holiday, observance, and/or practice qualifies as an acceptable excuse for an excused absence from school by the state. Possible Codes - A = State requires, either by statutory law or by state board of education rules, schools to excuse absences due to religious holidays, observances, and/or practices - B = State statutory law explicitly permits schools to excuse absences due to religious holidays, observances, and/or practices but does not require it - C = State statutes say nothing of religious holiday, observance, and/or practice within a list of specific excused absences (permitted or required) - D = State statutes do not include a list of specific qualifying excused absences, in some cases granting authority to a more localized entity to do so Possible Scores - 1 = State requires absences due to religious holidays, observances, and practices be excused (A) - 0 = State does not require absences due to religious holidays, observances, and practices be excused (B, C, D) ### 45. Public K-12 Students Excused for Religious Instruction This item indicates if student absence due to religious lessons or instruction qualifies as an acceptable excuse for an excused absence from school by the state. Possible Codes - A = State requires, either by statutory law or by state board of education rules, schools to excuse absences due to religious lessons and/or instruction - B = State statutory law explicitly permits schools to excuse absences due to religious lessons and/or instruction but does not require it - C = State statutes say nothing of religious lessons and/or instruction within a list of specific excused absences (permitted or required) - D = State statutes do not include a list of specific qualifying excused absences, in some cases granting authority to a more localized entity to do so Possible Scores - 1 = State requires absences due to religious lessons and/or instructions be excused (A) - 0 = State does not require absences due to religious lessons and/or instructions be excused (B, C, D) ### 46. Public College and University Students Excused for Religious Observance This item indicates if a college student absence due to religious holiday, observance, and/or practice qualifies as an acceptable excuse for an excused absence from school by the state. Possible Codes - A = State requires, either by statutory law or administrative rules, public colleges to excuse absences due to religious holidays, observances, and/or practices - B = State statutory law explicitly permits colleges to excuse absences due to religious holidays, observances, and/or practices but does not require it - C = State statutes say nothing of religious holiday, observance, and/or practice within a list of specific excused absences (permitted or required) - D = State statutes do not include a list of specific qualifying excused absences, in some cases granting authority to college/university to do so Possible Scores - 1 = State requires absences due to religious holidays, observances, and practices be excused (A) - 0 = State does not require absences due to religious holidays, observances, and practices be excused (B, C, D) ### 47. Right of Student Athletes to Wear Faith-Related Attire This item captures whether states permit student athletes to modify attire based on religious beliefs. Possible Codes - A = State explicitly protects the right of student-athletes to modify attire based on religious beliefs - B = State offers general protections to students regarding religious attire that do not clearly protect the right of student-athletes to modify attire based on religious beliefs - C = State does not have any protections regarding students wearing attire based on religious beliefs Possible Scores - 1 = State protects the ability of student athletes to modify attire based on religious beliefs (A) - 0 = State does not protect the ability of student athletes to modify attire based on religious beliefs (B, C) ### 48. Right to Opt Out of Sex Education Assignments This item considers whether a state permits parents to choose whether their children receive sexual education in public schools if they have religious objections. Possible Codes - A = State allows parents to opt their child out of sex education for any reason. - B = State allows parents to opt their child out of sex education for religious reasons. - C = State allows parents to opt their child out of any course they find objectionable - D = State requires parents to opt their child in to sex education courses - E = State allows parents to opt their child out of certain topics (e.g., infectious diseases), but not the full sex education course - F = State does not address whether parents may opt their child out of sex education courses Possible Scores - 1 = State offers some type of protection for the ability of parents to opt their child out of sex education (A, B, C) or requires parents to opt their child into sex education courses (D) - 0 = State does not offer a full protection for the ability of parents to opt their child out of sex education (E, F) ### 49. Equal Access for College Students* This item indicates whether a state has a law prohibiting public institutions of higher education from discriminating against groups because of their religious commitments. Possible Codes - A = State law prohibits institutions of higher education from discriminating against student groups because of their religious commitments - B = State law does not prohibit institutions of higher education from discriminating against student groups because of their religious commitments Possible Scores - 1 = State law prohibits institutions of higher education from discriminating against student groups because of their religious commitments (A) - 0 = State law does not prohibit institutions of higher education from discriminating against student groups because of their religious commitments (B) [TOP](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/codes-and-scoring/#top) ## XX. No Religious Discrimination in Foster Parent Eligibility ### 50. No Religious Discrimination in Foster Parent Eligibility This item ensures that current or prospective foster parents may not be forced to affirm, accept, or support any government policy regarding sexual orientation or gender identity that conflicts with the parent’s sincerely held religious or moral beliefs. Possible Codes - A = State law requires foster parents to affirm child’s sexual orientation - B = State law is silent about foster parents and child’s sexual orientation - C = State law stipulates that current or prospective foster parents may not be forced to affirm, accept, or support any government policy regarding sexual orientation that conflicts with the parent’s sincerely held religious or moral beliefs Possible Scores - 1 = State ensures that current or prospective foster parent may not be forced to affirm, accept, or support any government policy regarding sexual orientation or gender identity that conflicts with the parent’s sincerely held religious or moral beliefs (C) - 0 = State does not ensure that current or prospective foster parent may not be forced to affirm, accept, or support any government policy regarding sexual orientation or gender identity that conflicts with the parent’s sincerely held religious or moral beliefs (A, B) [TOP](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/codes-and-scoring/#top) --- --- title: "2024 Report" url: "https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/downloads/2024-report/" lang: "en-US" type: "page" description: "Report Religious Liberty in the States 2024 The report (PDF) includes an overview of what's new this year, complete state rankings, and helpful tables and figures.Click to download PDF" last_modified: "2025-07-11T18:43:56+00:00" custom_fields: iawp_total_views: 4 --- # 2024 Report [ ![Religious Liberty in the States Report 2024](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/wp-content/media/Religious_Liberty_in_the_States_Report-2024.jpeg) Report ## Religious Liberty in the States 2024 The report (PDF) includes an overview of what’s new this year, complete state rankings, and helpful tables and figures.**Click to download PDF** ](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/Religious_Liberty_in_the_States_Report-2024.pdf) --- --- title: "Religion Unplugged: Illinois and South Carolina Rank Tops in Religious Liberty Index" url: "https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/religion-unplugged-illinois-and-south-carolina-rank-tops-in-religious-liberty-index/" lang: "en-US" type: "post" description: "Illinois and South Carolina have the most religious liberty safeguards currently in place, while states such as West Virginia ranked at the bottom, a report issued by a conservative think tank revealed." last_modified: "2026-07-14T13:59:58+00:00" categories: [News] --- # Religion Unplugged: Illinois and South Carolina Rank Tops in Religious Liberty Index _Editor’s Note: The following news story was [published](https://religionunplugged.com/news/2023/12/19/illinois-and-south-carolina-rank-highest-in-us-religious-liberty-index) by _Religion Unplugged_ on December 21, 2023, and is authored by Jovan Tripkovic, _Religion Unplugged _editorial fellow._ Illinois and South Carolina have the most religious liberty safeguards currently in place, while states such as West Virginia ranked at the bottom, a report issued by a conservative think tank revealed. The Center for Religion, Culture and Democracy at First Liberty Institute, a non-profit legal organization dedicated to defending religious freedom, issued the report last month. In it, the group ranked all 50 U.S. states, from best to worst, as part of an annual religious freedom index. . . . According to the latest index, the three states with the most religious freedom protections are Illinois, South Carolina and New Mexico. Meanwhile, California, New Hampshire and West Virginia rank lowest for religious freedom protections in the country.  Results range from as low as 14% to a high of 85%, with no state reaching a perfect score. “With an expansion of the index, adding three new ranking categories, the gap between the first and last ranked state is larger than the year before,” [Jordan Ballor, a research director of CRCD](https://crcd.net/project/jordan-j-ballor/) said in a phone interview with _Religion Unplugged_. ## Some surprising results  Religious liberty is perceived as a hyper-partisan issue. For those on the political right, it’s on the top of the political agenda. The left, meanwhile, has often accuses the Supreme Court of [weaponizing religious liberty issues against the LGBT community](https://www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2018/05/bad-faith-how-conservatives-are-weaponizing-religious-liberty-allow-institutions). These preconceived attitudes, however, don’t translate into public policy. Quite the contrary. Illinois, a reliable blue state, is ranked No. 1, while West Virginia, a red state, is last.  [Trey Dimsdale, executive director of CRCD](https://crcd.net/project/trey-dimsdale-j-d/), said he was surprised with the results. “Besides Illinois being number one, I didn’t expect New Mexico and Washington to be in the top 10. These states don’t have a reputation for being particularly concerned about religious communities,” he said.  [Asma T. Uddin, a visiting professor at Columbus School of Law](https://www.law.edu/about-us/faculty-and-staff/Visiting/Asma_Uddin/index.html) in Washington, D.C., didn’t expect to see Texas towards the bottom of the list at No. 42. “I associated Texas with GOP claims about prizing religious liberty and making it a first priority, particularly when it comes to religious exceptions,” Uddin said. “I wasn’t surprised that Utah was toward the top, given its significant accomplishment with the Utah Compromise.”  For [Mark David Hall, director of the Religious Liberty in States Index](https://www.regent.edu/faculty/mark-david-hall/), the Palmetto State was a pleasant surprise. “South Carolina made strides to enhance their religious liberty laws and recently passed a general conscience provision for health care, an impressive jump from 38th to 2nd place,” Hall said.   . . . _Read the entire story in _Religion Unplugged_ [here](https://religionunplugged.com/news/2023/12/19/illinois-and-south-carolina-rank-highest-in-us-religious-liberty-index)._ --- --- title: "Micah Watson, Ph.D." url: "https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/advisory-council/micah-watson-ph-d/" lang: "en-US" type: "advisory-council" description: "Dr. Micah Watson is a native of the great golden state of California, where he completed his undergraduate degree at UC Davis. He earned his MA degree in church-state studies at Baylor University in Waco, Texas, and holds MA and" last_modified: "2026-06-30T19:52:45+00:00" custom_fields: board_org: "Calvin University" board_last_name: "Watson" iawp_total_views: 19 --- # Micah Watson, Ph.D. Dr. Micah Watson is a native of the great golden state of California, where he completed his undergraduate degree at UC Davis. He earned his MA degree in church-state studies at Baylor University in Waco, Texas, and holds MA and doctorate degrees in politics from Princeton University. Dr. Watson joined the faculty at Calvin University in the fall of 2015. He directs Calvin’s Politics, Philosophy and Economics (PPE) Program, serves as the executive director of the [Henry Institute for the Study of Christianity and Politics](https://calvin.edu/centers-institutes/henry-institute/), and is currently the Paul B. Henry Chair in Political Science. **Relevant Publications** - _Hopeful Realism: Christian Morality and Democratic Politics_, coauthored with Jesse Covington and Bryan McGraw (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, forthcoming). - “Obeying God Rather Than Men: Uneasy Evangelicals, Conscience, and Politics,” in _Christianity and the Laws of Conscience: An Introduction_, eds. Jeffrey B. Hammond and Helen M. Alvaré (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021), [https://www.amazon.com/Christianity-Laws-Conscience-Introduction-Law/dp/1108835384/](https://www.amazon.com/Christianity-Laws-Conscience-Introduction- Law/dp/1108835384/). - _C.S. Lewis on Politics and the Natural Law_, coauthored with Justin Dyer (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 2016), [https://www.amazon.com/C-Lewis-Politics-Natural-Law/dp/1107518970/](https://www.amazon.com/C-Lewis-Politics-Natural- Law/dp/1107518970/). --- --- title: "The Christian Post: Best and Worst States for Religious Liberty" url: "https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/the-christian-post-best-and-worst-states-for-religious-liberty/" lang: "en-US" type: "post" description: "The Center for Religion, Culture and Democracy at First Liberty Institute released its second annual Religious Liberty in the States report last week. The report ranked all 50 states by the number of safeguards in place for religious liberty. While Mississippi scored highest last year, Illinois received the highest score this year. " last_modified: "2026-07-14T14:00:00+00:00" categories: [News] --- # The Christian Post: Best and Worst States for Religious Liberty _Editor’s Note: The following news story was [published](https://www.christianpost.com/news/best-and-worst-state-for-religious-liberty.html) by _The Christian Post_ on November 8, 2023, and is authored by Ryan Foley, _Christian Post _reporter._ A new report reveals that Illinois has the most religious liberty safeguards in place as many states continue to lack adequate protections for religious people. The Center for Religion, Culture and Democracy at First Liberty Institute released its second annual Religious Liberty in the States [report](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/Religious_Liberty_in_the_States_Report-2023.pdf) last week. The report ranked all 50 states by the number of safeguards in place for religious liberty. While Mississippi scored highest last year, Illinois received the highest score this year.  Illinois’ 85% score marks an increase from the 81% it received last year. Mississippi, which received a score of 82% last year, now ranks fourth in religious liberty protections as it achieves a score of 64%. California, which came in last in 2022, now ranks fifth from the bottom while West Virginia descended to the bottom spot this year.  Safeguards that determined a state’s score include the availability of absentee voting for religious reasons and/or no-excuse absentee voting, the ability of healthcare providers to opt out of performing abortions or sterilizations and prescribing contraception if doing so violates their religious beliefs, and the presence of a Religious Freedom Restoration Act in the state. . . . For the most part, the safeguards measured in this year’s report mirror those from last year. However, there are a few changes. In addition to exemptions from childhood immunization requirements, the scores assigned to states this year take into account whether students can receive excused absences for religious observance and religious instruction.  This year’s report lists Illinois, Washington, Florida, Pennsylvania, Hawaii, Wisconsin and Oregon as having the most protections in place for school-aged children. On the other hand, Mississippi and West Virginia do not have any religious liberty safeguards for school-age children. Another set of additional safeguards included in this year’s report deal with religious and ceremonial life. The presence of exceptions for clergy members from laws mandating the reporting of suspected child abuse or neglect and laws allowing minors to consume alcohol for religious purposes are factors taken into consideration when ranking the states.  _Read the entire story in _The Christian Post_ [here](https://www.christianpost.com/news/best-and-worst-state-for-religious-liberty.html)._ --- --- title: "Asma T. Uddin, J.D." url: "https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/advisory-council/asma-t-uddin/" lang: "en-US" type: "advisory-council" description: "Asma T. Uddin is a professor, author, and lawyer specializing in religious liberty. Her recent major publications include When Islam Is Not a Religion (2019), The Politics of Vulnerability (2021), and numerous scholarly articles utilizing social science theories to map" last_modified: "2026-06-30T19:55:05+00:00" custom_fields: board_org: "Michigan State University" board_last_name: "Uddin" iawp_total_views: 10 --- # Asma T. Uddin, J.D. Asma T. Uddin is a professor, author, and lawyer specializing in religious liberty. Her recent major publications include _When Islam Is Not a Religion_ (2019), _The Politics of Vulnerability_ (2021), and numerous scholarly articles utilizing social science theories to map depolarization strategies for the U.S. Supreme Court. Uddin is Assistant Professor of Law at Michigan State University, where she teaches constitutional law and international human rights. Previously, she was Visiting Assistant Professor of Law at the Catholic University of America. After graduating from the University of Chicago Law School, Uddin served as Legal Counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. While there, she helped litigate religious liberty cases in both international and domestic tribunals, including the U.S. Supreme Court. Uddin is also a Fellow with the Aspen Institute’s Religion & Society Program in Washington, D.C., where she created a data-based approach to reducing Muslim-Christian polarization in the U.S. Her work on depolarization has been supported by the Fetzer Institute, Pew Charitable Trusts, and the Templeton Religion Trust. Uddin served two terms as an expert advisor on religious liberty to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), was a term-member of the Council on Foreign Relations, has held fellowships at Harvard, Georgetown, and UCLA, and currently sits on the Board of Advisors for Notre Dame University’s Religious Liberty Initiative. Uddin’s extensive public writing on religion, politics, and polarization have appeared in _The New York Times_, _Washington Post_, _Newsweek_, _USA Today_, _U.S News & World Report_, _Al Jazeera America_, _Flipboard_, _Refinery29_, _Teen Vogue_, and numerous other outlets. Uddin has also advised media projects on American Muslims, including as Executive Producer for the Emmy and Peabody nominated docu-series, The Secret Life of Muslims. --- --- title: "2023 Report" url: "https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/downloads/2023-report/" lang: "en-US" type: "page" description: "Report Religious Liberty in the States 2023 The report (PDF) includes an overview of what's new this year, complete state rankings, and helpful tables and figures.Click to download PDF" last_modified: "2025-07-11T18:46:18+00:00" custom_fields: iawp_total_views: 9 --- # 2023 Report [ ![2023_ReligiousLiberty_Cover_055@2x](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/wp-content/media/2023_ReligiousLiberty_Cover_055@2x.jpg) Report ## Religious Liberty in the States 2023 The report (PDF) includes an overview of what’s new this year, complete state rankings, and helpful tables and figures.**Click to download PDF** ](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/Religious_Liberty_in_the_States_Report-2023.pdf) --- --- title: "RealClear Religion: Not Just for Christians: How Religious Liberty Protections Benefit Religious Minorities" url: "https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/realclear-religion-not-just-for-christians-how-religious-liberty-protections-benefit-religious-minorities/" lang: "en-US" type: "post" description: "Editor’s Note: The following op-ed was published in RealClear Religion on July 19, 2023, and is authored by Trey Dimsdale, executive director of the Center for Religion, Culture & Democracy (CRCD), and Dr. Mark David Hall, senior research fellow for" last_modified: "2026-07-14T14:00:03+00:00" categories: [News] custom_fields: iawp_total_views: 9 --- # RealClear Religion: Not Just for Christians: How Religious Liberty Protections Benefit Religious Minorities _Editor’s Note: The following op-ed was [published](https://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2023/07/19/not_just_for_christians_how_religious_liberty_protections_benefit_religious_minorities_966944.html) in _RealClear Religion_ on July 19, 2023, and is authored by_ _Trey Dimsdale, executive director of the Center for Religion, Culture & Democracy (CRCD), and Dr. Mark David Hall, senior research fellow for CRCD._ Opponents of religious liberty often contend that the current Supreme Court has been taken over by [Christian nationalists](https://lawliberty.org/book-review/a-crusader-court/) who desire to privilege Christianity above all other faiths. For instance, [Vox](https://www.vox.com/22889417/supreme-court-religious-liberty-christian-right-revolution-amy-coney-barrett) has breathlessly observed that “The Supreme Court is leading a Christian conservative revolution” and [Rolling Stone](https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/political-commentary/supreme-court-affirmative-action-abortion-lgbtqu-religious-right-1234781941/) bemoans that “The Supreme Court Sold Its Soul to the Christian Right.” To support this accusation, critics of the court’s approach to religious freedom misrepresent two Supreme Court decisions released last month. The first featured a postal carrier who couldn’t [work](https://firstliberty.org/groff/#:~:text=Supreme%20Court%20Delivers%20More%20Freedom,Gerald%2C%20but%20for%20every%20American.) on Sundays due to a religious objection, and the second surrounded a [graphic designer](https://www.thefire.org/news/fire-statement-supreme-court-decision-303-creative-v-elenis) who would not create designs with messages that violated her conscience. Both involved Christians with objections based on religious beliefs, and both won their cases. These critics inevitably ignore cases such as _Holt v. Hobbs_ (2015), _EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch _(2015), and _Tanzin v. Tanvir_ (2020). The first two cases protect the ability of Islamic Americans to act according to their religious convictions and the third permitted three Muslim men to sue the FBI agents for damages under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Nor do critics mention that justices overwhelmingly voted in favor of the Islamic plaintiffs in these cases: 9-0, 8-1, and 8-0, respectively. But as important as this court is, safeguarding what America’s founders called “the [sacred right of conscience](https://www.libertyfund.org/books/the-sacred-rights-of-conscience/)” often falls to state legislatures. When legislatures protect religious liberty, these protections frequently benefit religious minorities. . . . All Americans are entitled to religious freedom, which should be protected at both the federal and state levels. Although citizens tend to focus on religious liberty legislation and cases at the national level, we must not neglect the important work done by states—or neglected by states—to protect this sacred right. _Read the entire op-ed in _RealClear Religion_ [here](https://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2023/07/19/not_just_for_christians_how_religious_liberty_protections_benefit_religious_minorities_966944.html)._ --- --- title: "WORLD Opinions: A Blue State Makes a Big Point" url: "https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/world-opinions-a-blue-state-makes-a-big-point/" lang: "en-US" type: "post" description: "One of the most noteworthy changes from the first iteration of the index last year is that the state of Illinois has moved from the second position to the top spot. Last year’s leader, Mississippi, dropped into a tie for fourth." last_modified: "2026-07-14T14:00:05+00:00" categories: [News] custom_fields: iawp_total_views: 12 --- # WORLD Opinions: A Blue State Makes a Big Point _Editor’s Note: The following essay was [published](https://wng.org/opinions/a-blue-state-makes-a-big-point-1689207701) in _WORLD Opinions_ on July 13, 2023, and is authored by Jordan Ballor, director of research for the Center for Religion, Culture & Democracy._ Today [July 13th] the [Center for Religion, Culture & Democracy](https://crcd.net/) makes public the results of our second annual Religious Liberty in the States (RLS) index. One of the most noteworthy changes from the first iteration of the index last year is that the state of Illinois has moved from the second position to the top spot. Last year’s leader, Mississippi, dropped into a tie for fourth. One element that remains consistent through both years of the RLS is that states that are typically identified as either red or blue, conservative or progressive, do not dominate either the top or the bottom of the rankings. There are blue states at the top—even the very top—and there are red states at or near the bottom. Even so, Illinois seems like an outlier that warrants further exploration. The last time a majority of voters in Illinois opted for a GOP presidential candidate was 35 years ago in 1988, when Republican George H. W. Bush beat Michael Dukakis. Only three of the 17 [representatives currently in the U.S. House from Illinois](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_delegations_from_Illinois) are Republicans, and only two members of the GOP have been elected (for one term each) to [the Senate from Illinois since 1985](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_senators_from_Illinois). At the level of state government, things are just as lopsided. Only one Republican has served as a governor in the last 20 years, and that was Bruce Rauner for a single term (2015-2019). Over that same period the Democratic party has held majorities [in both chambers of Illinois’ General Assembly](https://ballotpedia.org/Party_control_of_Illinois_state_government). … The methodology of the RLS project is such that it takes as a baseline or as a frontier only the legal provisions that states themselves have already enacted. That means each item in the index has been enacted in at least one state—and often in many more than one. In this way, even the first-place state of Illinois has something it can learn from other states to improve its legal safeguards of religious liberty. My hope is that all states, whether red, blue, or purple, will work to enhance the legal standing for those who face religious discrimination and restrictions because of their beliefs. Illinois shows us that this kind of robust legal protection is possible—even in a historically blue state. _Read the entire article in _WORLD Opinions _[here](https://wng.org/opinions/a-blue-state-makes-a-big-point-1689207701)_. --- --- title: "A Technical Note: Comparison Over Time and Editions of RLS" url: "https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/a-technical-note-comparison-over-time-and-editions-of-rls/" lang: "en-US" type: "post" description: "As RLS grows—aiming to measure a fuller potential for safeguarding the free exercise of religion and to provide a richer set of data to interested citizens, legislators, and scholars alike—it is important for users to note the scope of what the index is combining in a given year." last_modified: "2026-07-14T14:01:44+00:00" categories: [News] --- # A Technical Note: Comparison Over Time and Editions of RLS As RLS grows—aiming to measure a fuller potential for safeguarding the free exercise of religion and to provide a richer set of data to interested citizens, legislators, and scholars alike—it is important for users to note the scope of what the index is combining in a given year. Consider any individual state. Its score on RLS 2023, relative to 2022, will reflect two (potential) sources of change: what the state did to its laws from year one to year two (especially on the original eleven safeguards from RLS 2022) and what RLS added to its scope in the form of new safeguards for 2023. Many users of RLS, understandably, will want to celebrate any increase in their state’s score, which would indicate that the state in fact maintains a greater proportion of potential safeguards than previously reported. It is worth noting, though, that only a substantive change in a state’s laws between years has practical implications for its residents. If, alternatively, a state’s RLS score changes only because of the composition of what RLS measures, the new observations do not necessarily have any felt impact on residents in that state over time. Though different in their implications, both sources of change to a state’s RLS score are meaningful. The differences, however, must be carefully understood when making comparisons within a state over years and when comparing those improvements (or declines) relative to other states over the same time period. ## **Figure 2: Breaking Down the Overall Change in a State’s RLS Score** ![](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/wp-content/media/Figure-2-Breaking-Down-the-Overall-Change-1-894x1200.jpg) Figure 2 from the [executive summary](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/downloads/2023-executive-summary/) breaks down the overall change in five states’ scores over the two years of RLS: 2023’s number 1 and number 50 states, as well as the three states that made changes to their statutory laws. The horizontal axis labels “2022 Score” and “2023 Score” indicate that the vertical measures above them are the official, reported RLS scores in that year. The label “2023′” on that same axis indicates that the simulated scores plotted directly above are what the scores in 2023 would be had we not expanded the set of safeguards measured. Connecting all the points from left to right, then, forms something like trajectories where upward-sloping lines can be interpreted as improvement and downward-sloping lines as decline. However, only the first line segment for each of the five states illustrated above is an “apple-to-apple” comparison (since the safeguards are held constant). Still, RLS 2023 is a meaningful “orange” in that it provides more information on the circumstances of religious liberty in each state and across states. Notice that [Illinois](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/announcing-rls-2023s-1-state-illinois/)’ score increased, on net, by 4 percentage points from 2022 to 2023. That change combines the fact that Illinois made no improvements on the original eleven safeguards from RLS 2022 (indicated by a horizontal line segment at the start of the blue trajectory) but scored well on the three new [safeguard](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/safeguards/) areas. In fact, Illinois has in place in 2023 all five new component items that comprise RLS 2023’s three new safeguards. An Illinoisan might understandably be proud to be number 1 on the aggregate RLS 2023 score, and certainly should be glad Illinois’ score did not decrease, which would indicate a lack of the newly measured safeguards, but we should also be clear that none of the change in the overall score for Illinois was due to statutory changes. Similarly, [West Virginia](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/west-virginia/) made no changes to its existing laws in time for RLS 2023’s most recent measurement (represented by a horizontal line segment at the start of the red trajectory). But its score moves opposite of Illinois’ with the addition of the new safeguards in RLS 2023. West Virginia, in fact, has in place none of the five items comprising the three new statutory safeguards measured in RLS 2023. We can contrast these simpler cases with the more complicated cases of the three states that made changes in 2022 that affected their RLS 2023 score. [South Carolina](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/announcing-rls-2023s-runner-up-state-south-carolina/) (in green) and [Rhode Island](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/rhode-island/) (in yellow) made statutory changes that improved their degree of safeguarding on the original eleven safeguards. In fact, South Carolina adopted a general conscience provision for health-care providers that improved its score greatly (notice the steep slope of its first line segment) while also seeing improvements in its score due to the new items added to RLS in 2023 (the second line segment). It’s worth noting that implementing [statutes protecting conscience for health-care providers](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/safeguard/health-care-provision-open-ended-conscience-exemption/) of a broad array of health-care services is a quick way for a state to improve its RLS score. Not only will it satisfy RLS’s requirements for that particular safeguard, but often these laws have practical spillovers, improving state scores on abortion, sterilization, and contraception refusal safeguards or even health insurance contraceptive mandates. Between RLS 2022 and 2023, Rhode Island no longer required excuses for absentee voting, newly offering an alternative to voting in the polling place for religious reasons (e.g., holidays) or no particular reason at all. This improved its score on the original eleven safeguards, but that improvement was moderated by the addition of new items in RLS 2023 (as indicated by the initial upward-sloping line segment followed by the downward slope of the second line segment in yellow). In the end, Rhode Island still finishes with a higher score on RLS 2023 than RLS 2022. In the case of [Connecticut](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/connecticut/) (in purple), which eliminated the religious exemption for childhood immunizations, its score initially decreases (shown as a downward-sloping portion at the start of its trajectory), but its performance on the five new items comprising three new safeguards moderates its descent (note the subsequent uptick in the final line segment), recovering some of its loss for the aggregate score reported for RLS 2023. ## **Figure 3: Weighting Safeguards** ![](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/wp-content/media/Figure-3-Weighting-Safeguards-e1688677959298-1200x570.jpg) Finally, in making comparisons of a state’s scores across time, one should note that, with an expanding scope, each of the original eleven safeguards now represents a smaller portion of the whole. All the safeguards are weighted equally, and RLS is measured on a scale of 0 to 100 percent so as to reflect the percent of feasible safeguards a state has in place. But now with fourteen safeguards in 2023, a single safeguard is one-fourteenth (approximately 7 percent) of the whole (potential) score rather than one-eleventh (about 9 percent) of the whole. Figure 3 features two pie charts, one for each RLS year, showing the weight of safeguards (represented each by a slice of the pie) and the resulting influence of six or seven topically related groups of safeguards (indicated by the different colors). The size of any piece of the pie indicates what percentage of the overall RLS score in 2022 or 2023 a safeguard comprises, again noting that safeguards are weighted equally for simplicity and transparency of our measure. The magnitude of a color in the pie shows the implications of that equal weighting on the influence of particular topics or issues within RLS analyses. Comparing across pie charts in Figure 3, starting at noon and working clockwise, one can see that absentee voting, health-care provision safeguards (of which there are four), the exemption for religious employers from contraceptive mandates, marriage and wedding safeguards (of which there are three), and RFRA all carry less weight in the overall total of RLS 2023 than in 2022. The only topical group that now carries more weight in RLS 2023 than 2022 is the one associated with school-aged children, which expanded in scope from only religious exemptions from the childhood immunization requirement to also include the requirement of public schools to grant excused absences for religious reasons. That is, the group is now comprised of two safeguards. Put differently, while childhood immunizations carry less weight in RLS 2023, more of RLS 2023 has to do with school-aged children than did 2022. The other new safeguards in RLS 2023 coalesce around religious ceremonies or sacraments. Since these safeguards were not present in RLS 2022, they had no weight. This topical group is comprised of two safeguards: (1) the exception clergy may receive from mandatory reporting laws when hearing confidential or penitential communication and (2) exemptions for minors’ use of alcohol in religious ceremonies. Thus this group now comprises one-seventh of the aggregate score, since it is made up of two of fourteen total safeguards. _Interested in learning more about how RLS 2023 works? See our [methodology](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/methodology/) page or download the [executive summary](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/downloads/2023-executive-summary/) for more information._ --- --- title: "Announcing RLS 2023’s #1 State: Illinois" url: "https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/announcing-rls-2023s-1-state-illinois/" lang: "en-US" type: "post" description: "Illinois has earned the highest score in the Religious Liberty in the States (RLS) 2023 rankings due to its long history of protecting religious liberty, resulting in a broad range of state laws that safeguard the free exercise of religion for its residents." last_modified: "2026-07-14T14:00:07+00:00" categories: [News] custom_fields: iawp_total_views: 1 --- # Announcing RLS 2023’s #1 State: Illinois Illinois has earned the highest score in the Religious Liberty in the States (RLS) 2023 rankings due to its long history of protecting religious liberty, resulting in a broad range of state laws that safeguard the free exercise of religion for its residents. The Land of Lincoln earned a score of 85 percent, which is more than six times higher than the lowest state, [West Virginia](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/west-virginia/) (14 percent). In fact, [Illinois](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/illinois/) is 18 percentage points higher than the second state, [South Carolina](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/announcing-rls-2023s-runner-up-state-south-carolina/) (67 percent). The state’s dominance becomes clear when compared to other states with large populations, such as [Florida](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/florida/) (60 percent), [Texas](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/texas/) (34 percent), and [California](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/california/) (21 percent). RLS measures the freedom of people to practice religion in daily life based on state laws, not just their ability to gather for worship. Illinois’ score actually increased by 4 percentage points from RLS 2022 because the state [scored well](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/a-technical-note-comparison-over-time-and-editions-of-rls/) on the three new [safeguard](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/safeguards/) areas that were added in this year’s analysis. All of this means that Illinois continues to be a bellwether state for religious liberty in 2023. Here are some state laws that contribute to this distinction. ## **Excused Absences for School Children** One of the new safeguards included in RLS 2023 is how states handle [excusing absences](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/safeguard/school-aged-children-excused-absences-from-public-schools/) from school for religious reasons. This safeguard looks at absences for religious observances, such as holidays, as well as absences for religious instruction, such as catechism classes. Illinois requires schools to excuse both sorts of absences due to a recent law signed by Governor J.B. Pritzker in August 2021. Illinois’ law protects absences for all religions. While school calendars are often set up to avoid federally-recognized holidays such as Christmas, a law like Illinois’ permits students to observe Yom Kippur, Chinese New Year, Diwali, and any other religious holiday that may occur on a school day. This means that families in Illinois with school-aged children may take time off for religious observances and instruction without fear of penalty or loss of academic credit for their children. ## **Religious Freedom Restoration Act** Illinois’ Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) was enacted in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1997 decision that limited federal religious freedom protections to federal jurisdictions. State RFRA statutes are intended to protect the ability of religious people to practice their religion when other laws inadvertently hinder their ability to do so. The Illinois RFRA is unique in that it ensures a high standard of review, meaning that a law that would substantially burden religious exercise must further a compelling governmental interest and do so in the least restrictive way. Illinois’ RFRA protects a wide range of religious activities from government interference. This is particularly important for religious minorities who may need RFRA’s safeguards to protect expressions of their beliefs that are not covered by specific statutory protections. ## **Illinois’ Room for Improvement** Though it ranks much higher than any other state, even Illinois has room to improve its religious liberty protections for all, particularly in the area of marriage and weddings. While there are protections in place for clergy and religious organizations, these same protections are not extended to public officials or private businesses. For example, a minister who refuses to participate in a wedding for religious reasons is protected, but a caterer who holds the same beliefs may not be. This discrepancy in how an individual’s beliefs are protected under the law means that some people enjoy more protection than others. To address this issue, the state of Illinois could look to the [Protecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act](https://advance.lexis.com/documentpage/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=b48d2f80-c020-4196-b1ba-e6b6c7418c5d&action=pawlinkdoc&pdcomponentid=&pddocfullpath=%2Fshared%2Fdocument%2Fstatutes-legislation%2Furn%3AcontentItem%3A8P6B-7Y92-8T6X-73X4-00008-00&pdtocnodeidentifier=AAHABJAAB&config=00JABhZDIzMTViZS04NjcxLTQ1MDItOTllOS03MDg0ZTQxYzU4ZTQKAFBvZENhdGFsb2f8inKxYiqNVSihJeNKRlUp&ecomp=pghckkk&prid=fcdd4829-6779-44b9-a624-f0c791d70ff5) that was passed in [Mississippi](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/mississippi/). This act ensures that all individuals, including clergy, religious entities, public officials, and for-profit businesses, are able to abstain from performing wedding services or participating in marriage celebrations that conflict with their sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions. By adopting similar legislation, Illinois could further protect the rights of its citizens and ensure that all individuals are able to act in accordance with their beliefs without fear of discrimination or legal repercussions. Illinois has a rich history of protecting religious liberty, having consistently demonstrated a deep commitment to the principles of freedom of conscience and belief. The state’s dedication to this fundamental right can serve as an inspiration and example to other states, encouraging them to follow suit. The state of Illinois deserves recognition as a leader in religious liberty out of the fifty states. _Want to see where your state ranks? Check out the RLS index [state ranking](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/) or access the [executive summary](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/downloads/2023-executive-summary/) to learn more._ --- --- title: "Announcing RLS 2023’s Runner-up State: South Carolina" url: "https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/announcing-rls-2023s-runner-up-state-south-carolina/" lang: "en-US" type: "post" description: "South Carolina has made major strides in protecting religious liberty, significantly improving its ranking in the Religious Liberty in the States (RLS) index. While the Palmetto State ranked in 38th place in 2022 with an unimpressive score of 31 percent, it has skyrocketed to second place in 2023 with a strong score of 67 percent." last_modified: "2026-07-14T14:00:09+00:00" categories: [News] custom_fields: iawp_total_views: 1 --- # Announcing RLS 2023’s Runner-up State: South Carolina South Carolina has made major strides in protecting religious liberty, significantly improving its ranking in the Religious Liberty in the States (RLS) index. While the Palmetto State ranked in 38th place in 2022 with an unimpressive score of 31 percent, it has skyrocketed to second place in 2023 with a strong score of 67 percent. This increase happened primarily because [South Carolina](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/south-carolina/) adopted a general conscience provision for health-care providers. However, the state also saw [some improvement in its score](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/a-technical-note-comparison-over-time-and-editions-of-rls/) due to the new [safeguards](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/safeguards/) added to RLS in 2023. In fact, South Carolina is one of only three states that made statutory changes to their laws since last year’s index. [Rhode Island](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/rhode-island/) (48 percent) also improved by implementing protections for absentee voting. On the other hand, [Connecticut](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/connecticut/) (41 percent), eliminated the religious exemption from its childhood immunization requirement, resulting in a drop in its score. RLS measures the freedom of people to practice religion in daily life based on state laws, not just their ability to gather for worship. With its high ranking and dramatic improvement in score, South Carolina is a clear example of how a state can improve its laws to protect religious freedom and ensure that all people have the right to practice their faith. Here are a couple of laws that explain South Carolina’s rise. ## **General Conscience Safeguard** South Carolina’s [Medical Ethics and Diversity Act](https://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t44c139.php) went into effect in June 2022 and specifies that medical practitioners (i.e., individuals), public and private health-care institutions, and health-care payers “have the right not to participate in or pay for any health-care service which violates the practitioner’s or entity’s conscience.” This law includes strong health-care conscience protections that allow health-care providers to work based on their conscience, morals, or faith without facing repercussions. This includes individuals of any religion or no religion at all. In this year’s RLS, South Carolina’s statutes uphold the right for health-care providers, personnel, and payers to live according to their conscience, earning a score of 19 out of 20 for potential health-care safeguards. In the 2022 Index, South Carolina only earned 3 out of 20. The state’s improvement in this safeguard group accounts for the majority of its score improvement. ## **Ceremonial Use of Alcohol by Minors** One of the new safeguards included in the 2023 RLS is how states handle the use of alcohol by minors in religious ceremonies, such as communion services. This [safeguard](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/safeguard/religious-ceremonial-life-ceremonial-use-of-alcohol/) takes into account two important items that need to be protected. Firstly, it looks for protections for the clergy member who is serving alcohol within a religious ceremony, ensuring that they are not prosecuted for any minor (in this case, anyone under the age of 21) who is participating. Secondly, it also looks at whether the state is actively taking steps to protect the minor who is consuming alcohol, ensuring that there are no legal consequences. South Carolina has taken steps to protect both the clergy member and the minor, ensuring that both parties are safeguarded and protected in this situation, so long as the alcohol was purchased legally. This safeguard allows religious ceremonies to be conducted in accordance with the traditions and preferences of the various congregations and communities throughout the state without fear of putting any of their members in legal jeopardy. ## **South Carolina’s Room for Improvement** While South Carolinians enjoy strong religious freedom protections in such areas as religious ceremonies, health-care, and protections for school-aged children, there a few areas where they are lacking. Currently, South Carolina has none of the five protections in the area of marriage and weddings that are tracked by RLS. This means that there are no protections for religious entities, public officials, or for-profit businesses who want to decline participation in a marriage or wedding for any reason of faith or conscience. South Carolina is one of only nine states that does not allow for absentee voting due to religious holidays or other religious reasons. Of the forty-one states that do offer some protections in the area of voting, the most flexible approach is to allow citizens to vote absentee without providing a reason for why they cannot vote in person, such as the recent [Rhode Island bill](https://governor.ri.gov/press-releases/governor-mckee-signs-let-ri-vote-act) signed into law just last year. These two areas account for the large gulf in score between the first-place finisher, [Illinois](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/announcing-rls-2023s-1-state-illinois/) (85 percent), and South Carolina (67 percent). This means that Illinois safeguards 25 percent more for its residents than South Carolina. South Carolina made major strides in the last year by passing a general conscience safeguard for health-care, and it should continue to build on this success by seeking to extend religious freedom protections to its residents in the areas where it is lacking. In doing so, they can challenge Illinois’ dominant position at the top of the ranking in future years and continue to make South Carolina a welcoming state for all people. _Want to see where your state ranks? Check out the RLS index [state ranking](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/) or access the [executive summary](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/downloads/2023-executive-summary/) to learn more._ --- --- title: "How RLS Has Expanded in the Project’s Second Year" url: "https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/how-rls-has-expanded-in-the-projects-second-year/" lang: "en-US" type: "post" description: "The second year of RLS is a noteworthy development for the project, as it marks the first time that new safeguards were identified and changes in law were tracked over time. Learn more about how RLS has expanded in its second year." last_modified: "2026-07-14T14:00:11+00:00" categories: [News] --- # How RLS Has Expanded in the Project’s Second Year Religious liberty, a core freedom protected by the First Amendment, allows individuals to practice their chosen religion without restriction by the government. It also extends to the right to express religious beliefs through speech, writing, and other forms of expression. Despite the fact that this important freedom is enshrined in the Bill of Rights, it is largely up to each state to protect religious liberty within its borders, leading to fifty different sets of laws. State governments have taken very different approaches to this task of protecting religious liberty, leading to differences in how people experience this protection across the nation. Religious Liberty in the States (RLS) is an annual research project that ranks states on their religious liberty policies. RLS formulates a statistical index based on an assessment of state laws and policies related to religious liberty. The inaugural RLS 2022 project, which was the first-ever index of such domestic safeguards, proved particularly useful for those seeking to understand the extent of religious liberty protections and identify where improvements can be made to strengthen religious liberty on a state-by-state basis. The second year of RLS is a noteworthy development for the project, as it marks the first time that new safeguards were identified and changes in law were tracked over time. By establishing a foundation in its first two years of operation, the RLS project has created a platform for ongoing analysis and growth in the field of religious liberty protections.  ## **How Did the Index Change from 2022 to 2023?** The project tracks changes in state laws and policies from year to year and identifies new safeguards for the index. As the project grows, it is important to note that a state’s RLS score can change for two main reasons: changes in the state’s laws between the two years, or changes in the composition of what the index measures. If a state’s score changes due to changes in laws, it will have a tangible impact on residents, while changes due to the composition of the index will only affect the score and not necessarily the experience of the residents. It is important to understand the differences between these [two sources of change](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/a-technical-note-comparison-over-time-and-editions-of-rls/) in order to accurately compare states and improvements over time. RLS expanded its scope this year to include three new safeguards, bringing the total to fourteen [safeguards](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/safeguards/), which have been placed into seven groups: - Absentee Voting - Health-Care Provisions - Health Insurance Mandate (specifically regarding contraception) - Marriage & Weddings - Religious Ceremonial Life - Religious Freedom Restoration Act - School-Aged Children Learn more about all of the safeguards, including the three new ones, [here](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/safeguards/).  The top two states in the 2023 RLS index, [Illinois](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/announcing-rls-2023s-1-state-illinois/) and [South Carolina](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/announcing-rls-2023s-runner-up-state-south-carolina/), are great examples of the two different reasons a state’s score can change. Illinois made no changes to the eleven original safeguards, but improved its score because it had all of the new items within the RLS 2023’s three new safeguards in place. While South Carolina also improved its score due to the new items, most of its improvement came from implementing into law a new general conscience provision for health-care providers. ## **How Do the Results Compare?** 2023 saw more states with higher scores compared to 2022. Thirteen states scored above 50 percent in 2023, compared to only nine in the previous year. The average and median score also increased from 2022 to 2023. However, most of this apparent improvement can be explained by the composition of the three new safeguards, which are more commonly found in the states than the items in the RLS 2022. Only three states made changes to the original eleven safeguards of RLS 2022 in time for the 2023 data collection. South Carolina and [Rhode Island](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/rhode-island/) improved their laws, while [Connecticut](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/connecticut/) regressed by eliminating the religious exemption from its childhood immunization requirement. Signs suggest that state legislative action is increasing in the fourteen safeguard areas, and these changes will be seen in the RLS 2024 data and scores. When making a comparison between RLS scores across years, it is important to [understand the differences](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/a-technical-note-comparison-over-time-and-editions-of-rls/) in the components of each index, as the composition of the index has changed. This means that we cannot make an apples-to-apples comparison between the scores from one year to the next, as the score may be a result of the new components being in place rather than changes to the original safeguards. However, this does not mean that we cannot compare the scores, as we can still clearly identify the areas that allow us to make valid apples-to-apples comparisons. Our hope for this project is that the RLS index would not only be a tool for comparing the fifty states in a given year, but that over the course of a few years, the RLS index can give people insight into how religious liberty in a state has expanded or decreased over time. This knowledge can better equip people to advocate for improved safeguards in their state. With the publication of the second annual RLS index, people all over the United States can begin to do just that. _Interested in learning more about how RLS 2023 works? See our [methodology](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/methodology/) page or download the [executive summary](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/downloads/2023-executive-summary/) for more information._ --- --- title: "Protected: Site Analytics" url: "https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/site-analytics/" lang: "en-US" type: "page" description: "View Report Full Screen Return to Site" last_modified: "2025-07-14T12:14:54+00:00" --- # Protected: Site Analytics [ View Report Full Screen ](https://lookerstudio.google.com/reporting/ec6a035d-382d-4b98-9303-a19decfe6a23) [ Return to Site ]() --- --- title: "Advisory Council" url: "https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/about/advisory-council/" lang: "en-US" type: "page" description: "Title The Religious Liberty in the States Advisory Council brings together leading scholars and practitioners from diverse academic, legal, and religious backgrounds. Council members contribute their expertise to help guide the project's research priorities and ensure academic rigor. Representing institutions" last_modified: "2026-07-13T12:50:50+00:00" custom_fields: iawp_total_views: 141 --- # Advisory Council # Title The Religious Liberty in the States Advisory Council brings together leading scholars and practitioners from diverse academic, legal, and religious backgrounds. Council members contribute their expertise to help guide the project’s research priorities and ensure academic rigor. Representing institutions across the country, they offer valuable insight into how religious liberty is understood and applied in varied cultural and legal contexts. Their perspectives strengthen the credibility, balance, and impact of the project’s findings. --- --- title: "Amy Black, Ph.D." url: "https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/advisory-council/amy-black/" lang: "en-US" type: "advisory-council" description: "Dr. Amy E. Black is professor of political science at Wheaton College (IL). She is a specialist in American government, and her teaching and research interests include religion and politics, women in politics, fostering civil dialogue, the Presidency and Congress." last_modified: "2026-06-30T19:52:13+00:00" custom_fields: board_org: "Wheaton College" board_last_name: "Black" iawp_total_views: 10 --- # Amy Black, Ph.D. Dr. Amy E. Black is [professor of political science at Wheaton College](https://www.wheaton.edu/academics/faculty/amy-black/) (IL). She is a specialist in American government, and her teaching and research interests include religion and politics, women in politics, fostering civil dialogue, the Presidency and Congress. In addition to numerous publications, she speaks regularly at conferences and symposia, college campuses, and churches. She was an adviser and contributor to the Colossian Forum’s _Political Talk_ curriculum. She serves on advisory boards for the Council of Christian Colleges & Universities, Christians in Political Science, and the Initiative on Faith and Public Life at the American Enterprise Institute. She holds a B.A. in government from Claremont McKenna College and Ph.D. in political science from M.I.T.  ## **Relevant Publications** - Michael Wear and Amy E. Black, _Christianity, Pluralism, and Public Life in the United States: Insights from Christian Leaders _(Washington, D.C.: The Trinity Forum, 2020), [https://www.ttf.org/reports/](https://www.ttf.org/reports/). ** ** - “Evangelicals, Politics, and Public Policy: Lessons from the Past, Prospects for the Future,” in _The Future of Evangelicalism in America, _eds. Candy Gunther Brown and Mark Silk (New York: Columbia, 2016), [https://www.amazon.com/Future-Evangelicalism-America-Religion/dp/0231176112](https://www.amazon.com/Future-Evangelicalism-America-Religion/dp/0231176112).  - _Honoring God in Red or Blue: Approaching Politics with Humility, Grace, and Reason_ (Chicago: Moody, 2012), [https://www.moodypublishers.com/honoring-god-in-red-or-blue/](https://www.moodypublishers.com/honoring-god-in-red-or-blue/). - _Beyond Left and Right: Helping Christians Make Sense of American Politics _(Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2008)_, _[https://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Left-Right-Christians-American/dp/0739492837](https://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Left-Right-Christians-American/dp/0739492837).  --- --- title: "Deborah A. O’Malley, Ph.D." url: "https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/advisory-council/deborah-a-omalley/" lang: "en-US" type: "advisory-council" description: "Deborah A. O’Malley is an assistant professor in the Institute of American Constitutional Thought and Leadership at the University of Toledo. She holds an M.A. and Ph.D. in political science from Baylor University and a B.A. in political science and" last_modified: "2026-06-30T19:53:23+00:00" custom_fields: board_org: "University of Toledo" board_last_name: "O’Malley" iawp_total_views: 6 --- # Deborah A. O’Malley, Ph.D. Deborah A. O’Malley is an assistant professor in the Institute of American Constitutional Thought and Leadership at the University of Toledo. She holds an M.A. and Ph.D. in political science from Baylor University and a B.A. in political science and philosophy from Ashland University, where she participated in the John M. Ashbrook Scholars Program. After completing her Ph.D., Dr. O’Malley was a postdoctoral fellow in the James Madison Program at Princeton University. She was then a visiting assistant professor at Assumption University for four years and served as associate director of the Daniel Patrick Moynihan Center for Scholarship and Statesmanship. Most recently, she was associate director of the Center for Citizenship and Constitutional Government at the University of Notre Dame. Dr. O’Malley has worked on religious liberty issues in and outside of academia. She has been a researcher for Becket Law and a doctoral fellow with Georgetown University’s Berkley Center for Religion, Peace & World Affairs. She is currently a fellow with the Center for Religion, Culture & Democracy. ## **Relevant Publications** - “RFRA Is Not Enough. Indiana Needs More Religious Freedom,” _Indianapolis Star_, January 16, 2024, [https://eu.indystar.com/story/opinion/2024/01/16/rfra-is-not-enough-indiana-needs-more-religious-freedom/72161279007/](https://eu.indystar.com/story/opinion/2024/01/16/rfra-is-not-enough-indiana-needs-more-religious-freedom/72161279007/) - “Ohio Would Be Better on Religious Freedom if It Follows Leads of Illinois, Mississippi,” _Columbus Dispatch_, August 23, 2023, [https://www.dispatch.com/story/opinion/columns/guest/2023/08/22/ohio-would-be-better-if-it-follows-illinois-mississippi-on-religious-liberty-in-the-states-index/70622283007/](https://www.dispatch.com/story/opinion/columns/guest/2023/08/22/ohio-would-be-better-if-it-follows-illinois-mississippi-on-religious-liberty-in-the-states-index/70622283007/) - “Church and State Amid Covid-19: A New Debate for Modern Times,”_ Worcester Telegram & Gazette_, April 26, 2020,  [https://www.telegram.com/story/opinion/columns/guest/2020/04/26/as-i-see-it-church-and-state-amid-covid-19-new-debate-for-modern-times/1286619007/](https://www.telegram.com/story/opinion/columns/guest/2020/04/26/as-i-see-it-church-and-state-amid-covid-19-new-debate-for-modern-times/1286619007/) - “Religious Institutions and Associational Freedom in U.S. Supreme Court Jurisprudence,” _Berkley Forum_, December 14, 2016,  [https://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/responses/religious-institutions-and-associational-freedom-in-u-s-supreme-court-jurisprudence](https://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/responses/religious-institutions-and-associational-freedom-in-u-s-supreme-court-jurisprudence) --- --- title: "Jacqueline Pfeffer Merrill, Ph.D." url: "https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/advisory-council/jacqueline-pfeffer-merrill/" lang: "en-US" type: "advisory-council" description: "Dr. Jacqueline Pfeffer Merrill is Senior Director, Civic Learning and Free Expression Projects at the Council of Independent Colleges. She advises senior college leaders on approaches to fostering a campus culture that is diverse, inclusive, and open to robust intellectual" last_modified: "2026-06-30T19:53:53+00:00" custom_fields: board_org: "The Council of Independent Colleges" board_last_name: "Pfeffer Merrill" iawp_total_views: 16 --- # Jacqueline Pfeffer Merrill, Ph.D. Dr. Jacqueline Pfeffer Merrill is Senior Director, Civic Learning and Free Expression Projects at the [Council of Independent Colleges](https://cic.edu/). She advises senior college leaders on approaches to fostering a campus culture that is diverse, inclusive, and open to robust intellectual exchange. Her articles and essays have appeared in _Chronicle of Higher Education_, _Inside Higher Ed_, and _Perspectives on Political Science_. She serves on the Virginia 250 Commission’s Education Steering Committee and is vice president of the Association for Core Texts and Courses. She holds a B.A. (First Class Honours) from the University of Calgary and an M.A. and Ph.D. from Duke University. ## **Relevant Publications** - “This Summer, Make a Plan to Prepare Grad Students to Defend Academic Freedom,” _Inside Higher Ed_, July 30, 2025, [https://www.insidehighered.com/opinion/career-advice/2025/07/30/preparing-grad-students-defend-academic-freedom-opinion](https://www.insidehighered.com/opinion/career-advice/2025/07/30/preparing-grad-students-defend-academic-freedom-opinion).  - “Colleges Need to Be Places Where All Ideas Are on the Table,” George W. Bush Presidential Center, March 22, 2022, [https://www.bushcenter.org/publications/colleges-need-to-be-places-where-all-ideas-are-on-the-table](https://www.bushcenter.org/publications/colleges-need-to-be-places-where-all-ideas-are-on-the-table).  - “The Forgotten Gifts of American Volunteerism,” _Law and Liberty_, June 2, 2021, [https://lawliberty.org/book-review/the-forgotten-gifts-of-american-voluntarism/](https://lawliberty.org/book-review/the-forgotten-gifts-of-american-voluntarism/). --- --- title: "John Witte Jr., J.D." url: "https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/advisory-council/john-witte-jr/" lang: "en-US" type: "advisory-council" description: "Professor John Witte Jr. is Robert W. Woodruff University Professor of Law, McDonald Distinguished Professor of Religion, and faculty director of the Center for the Study of Law and Religion at Emory University. A leading specialist in legal history, human rights, religious" last_modified: "2026-06-30T19:55:45+00:00" custom_fields: board_org: "Emory University" board_last_name: "Witte" iawp_total_views: 17 --- # John Witte Jr., J.D. Professor John Witte Jr. is [Robert W. Woodruff University Professor of Law](https://law.emory.edu/faculty/faculty-profiles/witte-profile.html), McDonald Distinguished Professor of Religion, and faculty director of the [Center for the Study of Law and Religion at Emory University](https://cslr.law.emory.edu/). A leading specialist in legal history, human rights, religious freedom, marriage and family law, and law and religion, he has published 350 articles, 19 journal symposia, and 45 books. With major funding from the Pew, Ford, Lilly, Luce, and McDonald foundations, Professor Witte has directed 20 major international projects on democracy, human rights, and religious liberty; on marriage, family, and children; and on law and Christianity. He is series editor of Emory Studies in Law and Religion (Eerdmans) and Cambridge Studies in Law and Christianity (Cambridge University Press), and series coeditor of Brill Research Perspectives on Law and Religion (Brill), Colección Raices del Derecho (Thomson Reuter/Aranzadi), and in Chinese, Emory Law, Religion, and Culture Series (Bouden House). He also coedits the _Journal of Law and Religion_ (Cambridge University Press). Professor Witte holds a J.D. from Harvard University and a D. Theol. h.c. from the University of Heidelberg. ## **Relevant Publications** - _Faith, Freedom, and Family: New Studies in Law and Religion_, ed. Norman Doe and Gary S. Hauk, Untersuchungen über Recht und Religion 2 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2021), [https://www.mohrsiebeck.com/en/book/faith-freedom-and-family-9783161608766/](https://www.mohrsiebeck.com/en/book/faith-freedom-and-family-9783161608766/). - John Witte Jr., Joel A. Nichols, and Richard W. Garnett, _Religion and the American Constitutional Experiment_, 5th ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2022), [https://global.oup.com/academic/product/religion-and-the-american-constitutional-experiment-9780197587621?cc=us&lang=en&#](https://global.oup.com/academic/product/religion-and-the-american-constitutional-experiment-9780197587621?cc=us&lang=en&#).  - _The Blessings of Liberty: Human Rights and Religious Freedom in the Western Legal Tradition_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021), [https://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/law/jurisprudence/blessings-liberty-human-rights-and-religious-freedom-western-legal-tradition?format=PB](https://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/law/jurisprudence/blessings-liberty-human-rights-and-religious-freedom-western-legal-tradition?format=PB). - T. Jeremy Gunn and John Witte Jr. (eds.), _No Establishment of Religion: America’s Original Contribution to Religious Liberty_ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), [https://global.oup.com/academic/product/no-establishment-of-religion-9780199860395?cc=ca&lang=en&#](https://global.oup.com/academic/product/no-establishment-of-religion-9780199860395?cc=ca&lang=en&#). --- --- title: "Jonathan Den Hartog, Ph.D. " url: "https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/advisory-council/jonathan-den-hartog/" lang: "en-US" type: "advisory-council" description: "Dr. Jonathan Den Hartog is professor of history at Samford University in Birmingham, Alabama, where he also serves as the department chair. He has published articles in Early American Studies, the Journal of Church and State, and the Faulkner Law" last_modified: "2026-06-30T19:56:13+00:00" custom_fields: board_org: "Samford University" board_last_name: "Den Hartog" iawp_total_views: 19 --- # Jonathan Den Hartog, Ph.D.  Dr. Jonathan Den Hartog is [professor of history at Samford University](https://www.samford.edu/arts-and-sciences/directory/Den-Hartog-Jonathan) in Birmingham, Alabama, where he also serves as the department chair. He has published articles in _Early American Studies_, the _Journal of Church and State_, and the _Faulkner Law Review_, as well as essays in several edited volumes, on topics such as religion and the American Revolution, the War of 1812, and the use of the First Amendment in the nineteenth century. Dr. Den Hartog’s research has been supported by a number of grants, from organizations such as the National Endowment for the Humanities, the George Washington Library at Mt. Vernon, the American Antiquarian Society, the Clements Library of the University of Michigan, and the Gilder-Lehrman Institute of American History. He holds a Ph.D. in American history from the University of Notre Dame. ## **Relevant Publications** - “Church and State in the Nineteenth Century,” in _The Cambridge Companion to the First Amendment and Religious Liberty_, ed. Michael D. Breidenbach and Owen Anderson, 193-218 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020), [https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108277716](https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108277716). - Carl H. Esbeck and Jonathan J. Den Hartog (eds.), _Disestablishment and Religious Dissent: Church-State Relations in the New American States, 1776-1833 _(Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press, 2019), [https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07ZKDWNDM](https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07ZKDWNDM).  - _Patriotism and Piety: Federalist Politics and Religious Struggle in the New American Nation _(Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2015), [https://www.upress.virginia.edu/title/4667/](https://www.upress.virginia.edu/title/4667/).  --- --- title: "Michael Wear" url: "https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/advisory-council/michael-wear/" lang: "en-US" type: "advisory-council" description: "Michael Wear is the Founder, President and CEO of the Center for Christianity and Public Life, a nonpartisan, nonprofit institution based in the nation's capital with the mission to contend for the credibility of Christian resources in public life, for" last_modified: "2026-06-30T19:56:45+00:00" custom_fields: board_org: "Center for Christianity and Public Life" board_last_name: "Wear" iawp_total_views: 12 --- # Michael Wear Michael Wear is the Founder, President and CEO of the [Center for Christianity and Public Life](https://links.us1.defend.egress.com/Warning?crId=6a16f8517f54980f45ce6887&Domain=firstliberty.org&Threat=eNpzrShJLcpLzAEADmkDRA%3D%3D&Lang=en&Base64Url=eNrLKCkpsNLXLy8v10tOLihNyslMzslMS9XLL0rXBwCYmAp2&@OriginalLink=www.ccpubliclife.org), a nonpartisan, nonprofit institution based in the nation’s capital with the mission to contend for the credibility of Christian resources in public life, for the public good. For well over a decade, he has served as a trusted resource and advisor for a range of civic leaders on matters of faith and public life, including as a White House and presidential campaign staffer. Michael is a leading voice on building a healthy civic pluralism in twenty-first century America. He is the author of [_The Spirit of Our Politics: Spiritual Formation and the Renovation of Public Life_](https://links.us1.defend.egress.com/Warning?crId=6a16f8517f54980f45ce6887&Domain=firstliberty.org&Threat=eNpzrShJLcpLzAEADmkDRA%3D%3D&Lang=en&Base64Url=eNolyFEKgCAMANATzSlCUZco6gSjggbqRGdCp--j9_lu1VxnxN67oUivJHNIxD1zYYWlFVglsPJR4b9GAbYryUPKkvDMaL2zfhjdZD9gKBs_&@OriginalLink=www.amazon.com), which advances the argument that spiritual formation is central to civic renewal. ## **Relevant Publications** - Michael Wear and Amy E. Black, _Christianity, Pluralism, and Public Life in the United States: Insights from Christian Leaders _(Washington, D.C.: The Trinity Forum, 2020), [https://www.ttf.org/reports/](https://www.ttf.org/reports/). - Justin Giboney, Michael Wear, and Chris Butler, _Compassion (&) Conviction: The AND Campaign’s Guide to Faithful Civic Engagement _(Westmont, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2020), [https://www.ivpress.com/compassion-conviction](https://www.ivpress.com/compassion-conviction).  - _Reclaiming Hope: Lessons Learned in the Obama White House About the Future of Faith in America_ (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2017), [https://www.amazon.com/Reclaiming-Hope-Lessons-Learned-America/](https://www.amazon.com/Reclaiming-Hope-Lessons-Learned-America/dp/071808232X/ref=sr_1_7?qid=1673836210&refinements=p_27%3AMichael+Wear&s=books&sr=1-7&text=Michael+Wear) --- --- title: "Samuel Goldman, Ph.D." url: "https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/advisory-council/samuel-goldman/" lang: "en-US" type: "advisory-council" description: "Samuel Goldman is an Associate Professor of Humanities in the Hamilton School for Civic and Classical Education at the University of Florida. Before joining UF, Goldman was an Associate Professor of Political Science at George Washington University. He has published in a wide range of outlets and held" last_modified: "2026-06-30T19:59:24+00:00" custom_fields: board_org: "University of Florida" board_last_name: "Goldman" iawp_total_views: 9 --- # Samuel Goldman, Ph.D. Samuel Goldman is an [Associate Professor of Humanities in the Hamilton School for Civic and Classical Education at the University of Florida](https://hamilton.ufl.edu/people/samuel-goldman/). Before joining UF, Goldman was an Associate Professor of Political Science at George Washington University. He has published in a wide range of outlets and held a number of positions in journalism. ## **Relevant Publications** - “Perspective: How Orthodox Jewish Schools Came to the Front of the Religious Freedom Conversation,” _Deseret News_, Oct. 11, 2022, [https://www.deseret.com/2022/10/11/23397544/yeshivas-yeshiva-university-supreme-court-religious-freedom-lgbtq-club-new-york](https://www.deseret.com/2022/10/11/23397544/yeshivas-yeshiva-university-supreme-court-religious-freedom-lgbtq-club-new-york).  - _After Nationalism: Being American in an Age of Division_ (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2021), [https://www.pennpress.org/9780812251647/after-nationalism/](https://www.pennpress.org/9780812251647/after-nationalism/).  - “Nationalists Don’t See What Is Special About Our Biblical Nation,” _The New York Times_, Sept. 9, 2019, [https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/09/opinion/america-religion-bible-nationalists.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/09/opinion/america-religion-bible-nationalists.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur).  - _God’s Country: Christian Zionism in America _(Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2018), [https://www.pennpress.org/9780812250039/gods-country/](https://www.pennpress.org/9780812250039/gods-country/). --- --- title: "Stanley Carlson-Thies, Ph.D." url: "https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/advisory-council/stanley-carlson-thies/" lang: "en-US" type: "advisory-council" description: "Dr. Stanley Carlson-Thies is the founder of the Institutional Religious Freedom Alliance, which promotes the religious freedoms that enable faith-based organizations to make their distinctive contributions to the common good. IRFA is a division of the Center for Public Justice," last_modified: "2026-06-30T19:57:14+00:00" custom_fields: board_org: "Center for Public Justice" board_last_name: "Carlson-Thies" iawp_total_views: 7 --- # Stanley Carlson-Thies, Ph.D. Dr. Stanley Carlson-Thies is the founder of the Institutional Religious Freedom Alliance, which promotes the religious freedoms that enable faith-based organizations to make their distinctive contributions to the common good. IRFA is a division of the [Center for Public Justice](https://cpjustice.org/), an independent, nonpartisan Christian organization devoted to leadership development, policy research, and civic education. He transitioned to senior fellow status in May 2025. Dr. Carlson-Thies initiated in 2002 the Coalition to Preserve Religious Freedom, a monthly multi-faith gathering of religious freedom advocates and leaders of faith-based organizations that monitors and advocates to Congress and the executive branch for laws and regulations that respect institutional religious freedom. He served on faith-based and community initiatives in both the George W. Bush and Obama administrations. He holds a Ph.D. in political science from the University of Toronto. His dissertation is on the changing interaction of religion and political structures in the Netherlands from the 1850s to the 1920s, with special attention to the role of Abraham Kuyper. ## **Relevant Publications** - _Making Possible Partnerships for Faithful Service:  The Vision, Advances, and Unfinished Reforms of the Faith-Based Initiative_ (Center for Public Justice, 2026). - “The Common Good Is Plural: What Then Should We Require of Government? (A Brief Reflection),” _Journal of Christian Legal Thought_ 14, no. 1 (2024): 1-6. [https://www.christianlegalsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/CLS_2024_June10th_small.pdf](https://www.christianlegalsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/CLS_2024_June10th_small.pdf). - “The Common Good Requires Robust Institutional Religious Freedom,” _University of St. Thomas Law Journal_ 15, no. 3 (2019): 529-545. [https://ir.stthomas.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1445&context=ustlj](https://ir.stthomas.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1445&context=ustlj).   - Stephen V. Monsma and Stanley W. Carlson-Thies, _Free to Serve: Preserving the Religious Freedom of Faith-Based Organizations_ (Ada, MI: Brazos Press, 2015), [https://www.amazon.com/Free-Serve-Protecting-Faith-Based-Organizations/dp/1587433737](https://www.amazon.com/Free-Serve-Protecting-Faith-Based-Organizations/dp/1587433737). --- --- title: "Vincent Phillip Muñoz, Ph.D." url: "https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/advisory-council/vincent-phillip-munoz/" lang: "en-US" type: "advisory-council" description: "Dr. Vincent Phillip Muñoz is the Tocqueville Professor of Political Science and concurrent professor of law at the University of Notre Dame. He is the founding director of ND’s Center for Citizenship & Constitutional Government. Dr. Muñoz writes and teaches" last_modified: "2026-06-30T19:57:41+00:00" custom_fields: board_org: "University of Notre Dame" board_last_name: "Muñoz" iawp_total_views: 12 --- # Vincent Phillip Muñoz, Ph.D. Dr. Vincent Phillip Muñoz is the Tocqueville Professor of Political Science and concurrent[ professor of law at the University of Notre Dame](https://law.nd.edu/directory/vincent-munoz/). He is the founding director of ND’s [Center for Citizenship & Constitutional Government](https://constudies.nd.edu/). Dr. Muñoz writes and teaches across the fields of constitutional law, American politics, and political philosophy with a focus on religious liberty and the American Founding. His First Amendment church-state case reader, _Religious Liberty and the American Supreme Court: The Essential Cases and Documents_ is being used at Notre Dame and other leading universities. His scholarship has been cited numerous times in church-state Supreme Court opinions, most recently by Justice Alito in _Fulton v. City of Philadelphia _(2021) and by both Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Thomas in _Espinoza v. Montana_ (2020). He holds a B.A. from Claremont McKenna College, a M.A. from Boston College, and a Ph.D. from Claremont Graduate School. ## **Relevant Publications** - _Religious Liberty and the American Founding: Natural Rights and the Original Meanings of the First Amendment Religion Clauses _(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2022), [https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/R/bo177914167.html](https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/R/bo177914167.html).  - _Religious Liberty and the American Supreme Court: The Essential Cases and Documents_, rev. ed. (Washington, D.C.: Rowman & Littlefield, 2015), [https://www.amazon.com/Religious-Liberty-American-Supreme-Court/dp/1442208287/ref=mt_paperback?_encoding=UTF8&me=](https://www.amazon.com/Religious-Liberty-American-Supreme-Court/dp/1442208287/ref=mt_paperback?_encoding=UTF8&me=).    - _God and the Founders: Madison, Washington, and Jefferson _(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), [https://www.amazon.com/God-Founders-Madison-Washington-Jefferson/dp/0521735793](https://www.amazon.com/God-Founders-Madison-Washington-Jefferson/dp/0521735793). --- --- title: "Waleed El-Ansary, Ph.D." url: "https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/advisory-council/waleed-el-ansary/" lang: "en-US" type: "advisory-council" description: "Dr. Waleed El-Ansary is the Helal, Hisham and Laila Edris El-Swedey University Chair in Islamic Studies at Xavier University, where he teaches courses on comparative religion, Islamic studies, and religion and science. His research focuses on the intersection of religion," last_modified: "2026-06-30T19:58:23+00:00" custom_fields: board_org: "Xavier University" board_last_name: "El-Ansary" iawp_total_views: 6 --- # Waleed El-Ansary, Ph.D. Dr. Waleed El-Ansary is the [Helal, Hisham and Laila Edris El-Swedey University Chair in Islamic Studies at Xavier University](https://www.xavier.edu/theology-department/directory/waleed-elansary), where he teaches courses on comparative religion, Islamic studies, and religion and science. His research focuses on the intersection of religion, science, and economics. His most recent book with Alexis Blum, grand rabbi emeritus of Neuilly, and Bishop Claude Dagens, bishop of Angouleme, is _Knowing the Religion of the Other_, which was arranged through the [UNESCO-based Aladdin project](https://projectaladdin.org/) to help train young rabbis, priests/preachers, and imams in the Abrahamic traditions for greater mutual understanding and peace. He holds a Ph.D. in Islamic and religious studies from George Washington University and an M.A. in economics from the University of Maryland. ## **Relevant Publications** - “Can Our Science and Economics Honor Nature?”, _Renovatio_, April 28, 2017, [https://renovatio.zaytuna.edu/article/can-our-science-and-economics-honor-nature](https://renovatio.zaytuna.edu/article/can-our-science-and-economics-honor-nature).  - “Hindu and Islamic Economics: On the Need for a New Economic Paradigm,” _The Muslim World_ 107, no. 2 (April 2017): 299-331. [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/muwo.12192](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/muwo.12192).  - Waleed El-Ansary and David K. Linnan (eds.), _Muslim and Christian Understanding: Theory and Application of “A Common Word” _(New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010), [https://www.amazon.com/Muslim-Christian-Understanding-Theory-Application/dp/0230104428](https://www.amazon.com/Muslim-Christian-Understanding-Theory-Application/dp/0230104428). --- --- title: "RLS 2022 Archive" url: "https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/rls-2022-archive/" lang: "en-US" type: "page" description: "Title Click a State to Download its Scorecard 1. Mississippi 2. Illinois 3. New Mexico 4. Florida 5. Washington 6. Utah 7. Tennessee 8. Maryland 9. Idaho 10. Kansas 11. Connecticut 12. Pennsylvania 12. Alabama 14. Missouri 14. Maine 16." last_modified: "2026-05-27T19:01:18+00:00" custom_fields: iawp_total_views: 61 --- # RLS 2022 Archive # Title ![RLS2022](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/wp-content/media/RLS2022.jpg) ## Click a State to Download its Scorecard 1. [Mississippi](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Mississippi-Scorecard-2022.pdf) 2. [Illinois](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Illinois-Scorecard-2022.pdf) 3. [New Mexico](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-New-Mexico-Scorecard-2022.pdf) 4. [Florida](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Florida-Scorecard-2022.pdf) 5. [Washington](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Washington-Scorecard-2022.pdf) 6. [Utah](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Utah-Scorecard-2022.pdf) 7. [Tennessee](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Tennessee-Scorecard-2022.pdf) 8. [Maryland](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Maryland-Scorecard-2022.pdf) 9. [Idaho](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Idaho-Scorecard-2022.pdf) 10. [Kansas](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Kansas-Scorecard-2022.pdf) 11. [Connecticut](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Connecticut-Scorecard-2022.pdf) 12. [Pennsylvania](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Pennsylvania-Scorecard-2022.pdf) 12. [Alabama](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Alabama-Scorecard-2022.pdf) 14. [Missouri](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Missouri-Scorecard-2022.pdf) 14. [Maine](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Maine-Scorecard-2022.pdf) 16. [Rhode Island](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Rhode-Island-Scorecard-2022.pdf) 16. [Oklahoma](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Oklahoma-Scorecard-2022.pdf) 18. [South Dakota](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-South-Dakota-Scorecard-2022.pdf) 18. [Minnesota](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Minnesota-Scorecard-2022.pdf) 18. [Massachusetts](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Massachusetts-Scorecard-2022.pdf) 21. [Arizona](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Arizona-Scorecard-2022.pdf) 22. [Delaware](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Delaware-Scorecard-2022.pdf) 23. [Indiana](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Indiana-Scorecard-2022.pdf) 24. [Montana](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Montana-Scorecard-2022.pdf) 25. [Texas](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Texas-Scorecard-2022.pdf) 26. [Kentucky](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Kentucky-Scorecard-2022.pdf) 27. [Louisiana](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Louisiana-Scorecard-2022.pdf) 27. [Arkansas](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Arkansas-Scorecard-2022.pdf) 29. [Wyoming](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Wyoming-Scorecard-2022.pdf) 30. [Virginia](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Virginia-Scorecard-2022.pdf) 30. [Ohio](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Ohio-Scorecard-2022.pdf) 30. [North Carolina](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-North-Carolina-Scorecard-2022.pdf) 30. [Nebraska](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Nebraska-Scorecard-2022.pdf) 30. [Hawaii](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Hawaii-Scorecard-2022.pdf) 30. [Alaska](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Alaska-Scorecard-2022.pdf) 36. [New Jersey](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-New-Jersey-Scorecard-2022.pdf) 37. [North Dakota](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-North-Dakota-Scorecard-2022.pdf) 38. [South Carolina](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-South-Carolina-Scorecard-2022.pdf) 39. [Wisconsin](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Wisconsin-Scorecard-2022.pdf) 39. [Georgia](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Georgia-Scorecard-2022.pdf) 41. [Colorado](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Colorado-Scorecard-2022.pdf) 42. [Nevada](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Nevada-Scorecard-2022.pdf) 43. [New Hampshire](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-New-Hampshire-Scorecard-2022.pdf) 44. [Michigan](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Michigan-Scorecard-2022.pdf) 45. [Vermont](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Vermont-Scorecard-2022.pdf) 46. [Oregon](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Oregon-Scorecard-2022.pdf) 46. [Iowa](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-Iowa-Scorecard-2022.pdf) 48. [California](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-California-Scorecard-2022.pdf) 49. [West Virginia](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-West-Virginia-Scorecard-2022.pdf) 50. [New York](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS-New-York-Scorecard-2022.pdf) [ ![RLS-2022-Cover](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/wp-content/media/RLS-2022-Cover-1.jpg) 2022 Full Report ## Religious Liberty in the States The report (PDF) includes an executive summary, overview, tables and rankings, discussion of methodology, FAQ, and all 50 state scorecards.**Click to download PDF** ](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/Religious_Liberty_in_the_States_Report-2022.pdf) [ ![22-RFI-004-RLS-Template_Dataset-Cover2](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/wp-content/media/22-RFI-004-RLS-Template_Dataset-Cover2-1.jpg) 2022 Dataset ## Religious Liberty in the States This dataset (.xlsx) contains the data used to construct the index and rankings.**Click to download XLSX** ](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/Religious_Liberty_in_the_States_Dataset-2022.xlsx) Religious Liberty in the States, a project of the Center for Religion, Culture & Democracy, was developed and authored in its inaugural year by Dr. Sarah M. Estelle and published in September 2022. **Suggested citations:** Estelle, Sarah M. 2022. _Religious Liberty in the States 2022_. Plano, TX: Center for Religion, Culture & Democracy. [https://doi.org/10.54669/DRYP4816](https://doi.org/10.54669/DRYP4816). Estelle, Sarah M. 2022. Religious Liberty in the States 2022 Dataset. Plano, TX: Center for Religion, Culture & Democracy. [https://doi.org/10.54669/GJSE4026](https://doi.org/10.54669/GJSE4026). **Note: Researchers and other users of RLS data are strongly encouraged to use the most updated version of our dataset available for download, rather than relying on archived data. Annual data updates are longitudinal, that is, they maintain assessments of past years’ statutory laws within the scope of RLS along with current data. Using the most recent data publication will give researchers access to any adjustment made in light of updating by legal citators and errata.** --- --- title: "2023 Dataset" url: "https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/downloads/2023-dataset/" lang: "en-US" type: "page" description: "Dataset Religious Liberty in the States 2023 This dataset (.xlsx) contains the data used to construct the index and rankings, along with research notes and links to state laws. It also includes data from the previous years of the index.Click" last_modified: "2025-07-11T18:50:42+00:00" --- # 2023 Dataset [ ![2023_ReligiousLiberty_Cover_Dataset](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/wp-content/media/2023_ReligiousLiberty_Cover_Dataset.jpg) Dataset ## Religious Liberty in the States 2023 This dataset (.xlsx) contains the data used to construct the index and rankings, along with research notes and links to state laws. It also includes data from the previous years of the index.**Click to download XLSX** ](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/Religious_Liberty_in_the_States_Dataset-2023.xlsx) --- --- title: "2023 Executive Summary" url: "https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/downloads/2023-executive-summary/" lang: "en-US" type: "page" description: "Executive Summary Religious Liberty in the States 2023 A brief overview (pdf) of the changes to RLS in its second year including the new safeguards measured and the resulting scores and rankings of the 50 states in 2023.Click to download" last_modified: "2025-07-11T18:48:57+00:00" --- # 2023 Executive Summary [ ![RLS-2023-Executive-Summary-Cover](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/wp-content/media/RLS-2023-Executive-Summary-Cover.jpg) Executive Summary ## Religious Liberty in the States 2023 A brief overview (pdf) of the changes to RLS in its second year including the new safeguards measured and the resulting scores and rankings of the 50 states in 2023.**Click to download PDF** ](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/Religious_Liberty_in_the_States_Executive-2023.pdf) --- --- title: "Jackson Sun: Tennessee Can Do Better to Protect Religious Liberties" url: "https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/jackson-sun-tennessee-can-do-better-to-protect-religious-liberties/" lang: "en-US" type: "post" description: "Editor’s Note: The following op-ed was published in the Jackson Sun on October 15, 2022, and is authored by Dr. Sean Evans, chairman of the Department of Political Science at Union University. While Tennessee Volunteer football fans are excited about being ranked #6" last_modified: "2026-07-14T14:00:13+00:00" categories: [News] --- # Jackson Sun: Tennessee Can Do Better to Protect Religious Liberties _Editor’s Note: The following op-ed was [published](https://www.jacksonsun.com/story/opinion/2022/10/16/sean-evans-tennessee-can-do-better-to-protect-religious-liberties/69563734007/) in the_ Jackson Sun_ on October 15, 2022, and is authored by Dr. Sean Evans, chairman of the Department of Political Science at Union University._ While Tennessee Volunteer football fans are excited about being ranked #6 in the nation, all Tennesseans should be excited that Tennessee is ranked [#7](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/) in religious liberty protections. And just as Volunteer fans hope to climb higher, Tennessee can do more to protect religious liberty. The First Amendment’s free exercise clause protects the right of individuals to believe and act on those beliefs. The Founders believed that religion was important in developing the virtues in people necessary for self-government. Moreover, the right to speak, publish, assemble, and petition the government would be meaningless without the freedom of thought and conscience the religion clauses protect. Today, religious liberty also promotes pluralism as people of different faiths live together peacefully and caring for the poor, orphans, refugees, and other disadvantaged people. … [Tennessee](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/tennessee/) does well on allowing religion as a reason for absentee voting, providing religious exemptions for vaccine requirements, exempting employers from contraceptive mandates that include abortifacients, having a state Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and providing healthcare conscience exemptions for individuals and private hospitals in refusing to participate in an abortion, sterilization, or distributing contraception. However, Tennessee does not provide immunity from civil lawsuits for refusing to provide an abortion nor immunity from criminal liability or punitive government action for refusing to participate in an abortion, sterilization, or the distribution of contraception. This failure means that a nurse or doctor who believes that abortion, sterilization, or contraception is morally wrong could be sued for damages or threatened with the loss of their medical license. These threats could make these individuals choose between their livelihood and their conscience which is wrong. … _Read the entire article in the_ Jackson Sun _[here](https://www.jacksonsun.com/story/opinion/2022/10/16/sean-evans-tennessee-can-do-better-to-protect-religious-liberties/69563734007/)_. --- --- title: "Alabama Political Reporter: Religious Liberty in Alabama: Pretty Good, Could be Better" url: "https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/alabama-political-reporter-religious-liberty-in-alabama-pretty-good-could-be-better/" lang: "en-US" type: "post" description: "Editor’s Note: The following op-ed was published in the Alabama Political Reporter on September 29, 2022, and is co-authored by Dr. Jason Jewell, chair of the Department of Humanities at Faulkner University, and Allen Mendenhall, associate dean of the Sorrell College of Business" last_modified: "2026-07-14T14:00:15+00:00" categories: [News] --- # Alabama Political Reporter: Religious Liberty in Alabama: Pretty Good, Could be Better _Editor’s Note: The following op-ed was [published](https://www.alreporter.com/2022/09/29/opinion-religious-liberty-in-alabama-pretty-good-could-be-better/) in the_ Alabama Political Reporter_ on September 29, 2022, and is co-authored by Dr. Jason Jewell, chair of the Department of Humanities at Faulkner University, and Allen Mendenhall, associate dean of the Sorrell College of Business at Troy University and executive director of the Manuel H. Johnson Center for Political Economy._ The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits Congress from infringing on citizens’ free exercise of their religion. How well do the 50 states safeguard that freedom? Dr. Sarah Estelle of the First Liberty Institute’s Center for Religion, Culture, and Democracy has begun answering that question with a new report published earlier this month. [Religious Liberty in the States 2022](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/) ranks each state according to whether it grants religious accommodations in a variety of circumstances. Estelle noted where some states expressly accommodate religious practitioners when an issue of conscience arises in areas such as health-care provision and wedding participation. She then considered whether other states made similar accommodations, eventually compiling a data set of 29 items across six broad areas of concern. The verdict: Mississippi and Illinois rank best among the states at navigating these issues of religious conscience. California, West Virginia, and New York are the worst. Alabama [ranks 12th](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/alabama/) on this scale. In other words, we’re pretty good, but we could be better. What do we do well? Alabama grants a religious exemption for childhood immunization requirements. It has a state-level version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). It allows the maximum scope of religious exemptions for the Affordable Care Act’s insurance contraceptive mandate. And it allows individual medical practitioners to refuse to participate in abortions or sterilization procedures on the basis of religion. We could, however, improve in other areas. Alabama is one of just 10 states that does not include religion as an acceptable reason for absentee voting in elections. This oversight potentially forces Alabama voters to choose between civic participation and religious observance if, for example, an election falls on a religious holiday. … _Read the entire article in the_ Alabama Political Reporter _[here](https://www.alreporter.com/2022/09/29/opinion-religious-liberty-in-alabama-pretty-good-could-be-better/)_. --- --- title: "Holland Sentinel: Michigan Can Do Better on Religious Liberty" url: "https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/holland-sentinel-michigan-can-do-better-on-religious-liberty/" lang: "en-US" type: "post" description: "Editor’s Note: The following op-ed was published in the Holland Sentinel on September 29, 2022, and is co-authored by Dr. Sarah M. Estelle, associate professor of economics at Hope College in Holland, Mich. and director of Religious Liberty in the States, and Dr." last_modified: "2026-07-14T14:00:16+00:00" categories: [News] --- # Holland Sentinel: Michigan Can Do Better on Religious Liberty _Editor’s Note: The following op-ed was [published](https://www.hollandsentinel.com/story/opinion/columns/2022/09/29/our-take-michigan-can-do-better-on-religious-liberty/69520112007/) in the_ Holland Sentinel_ on September 29, 2022, and is co-authored by Dr. Sarah M. Estelle, associate professor of economics at Hope College in Holland, Mich. and director of Religious Liberty in the States, and Dr. Jordan J. Ballor, director of research at the Center for Religion, Culture & Democracy at First Liberty Institute._ … While the federal government largely sets the context for many of the areas identified in the RLS index, the research for the project identified significant areas of potential and actual differentiation among the 50 states. Where a particular provision was found in a state’s law that had relevance for providing legal protection for free exercise, that item was identified and compared to every other state to see if similar provisions were present. When all these items were scored and tallied, the RLS index found a wide variety of areas where some states were active and others were not. [Michigan](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/michigan/), for example, with a score of 26%, [ranks 44th](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/michigan/) in the 2022 RLS index. That’s well-below the average score of 39% and below other states in the Midwest, like Ohio (which ranks 30th at 34%), Indiana (which ranks 23rd at 40%), and Wisconsin (which ranks 39th at 31%). In fact, the only state in the Midwest with a lower score than Michigan is Iowa, which places 46th in the nation at 23%. Two places where Michigan has made clear provisions to protect religious believers are in the areas of voting and childhood immunizations. If a polling day conflicts with a religious holiday in Michigan, then religious adherents in Michigan have the ability to vote absentee, and there are exemptions for parents from immunization requirements for their children if their beliefs conflict with government policy. The good news is that Michigan has a great deal of room to improve for accommodating the free exercise of religion rightfully enjoyed and protected for all Michiganders. … _Read the entire article in the_ Holland Sentinel _[here](https://www.hollandsentinel.com/story/opinion/columns/2022/09/29/our-take-michigan-can-do-better-on-religious-liberty/69520112007/)_. --- --- title: "Tulsa World: Oklahoma Edges Out Texas in Protecting Religious Liberty" url: "https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/tulsa-world-oklahoma-edges-out-texas-in-protecting-religious-liberty/" lang: "en-US" type: "post" description: "Editor’s Note: The following op-ed was published in the Tulsa World on October 1, 2022, and is authored by Hiram Sasser, executive general counsel for First Liberty Institute and adjunct law professor at Oklahoma City University School of Law. A new ranking of" last_modified: "2026-07-14T14:00:18+00:00" categories: [News] --- # Tulsa World: Oklahoma Edges Out Texas in Protecting Religious Liberty _Editor’s Note: The following op-ed was [published](https://tulsaworld.com/opinion/columnists/column-oklahoma-edges-out-texas-in-protecting-religious-liberty/article_e07ec914-3ebd-11ed-aaac-d36f4df7389e.html) in the_ Tulsa World_ on October 1, 2022, and is authored by Hiram Sasser, executive general counsel for First Liberty Institute and adjunct law professor at Oklahoma City University School of Law_. A new ranking of religious liberty across the country finds Oklahoma in the top third of all states, placing 16th in the nation. Significantly, Oklahoma is several steps ahead of our outspoken neighbor to the south, Texas, which comes in 25th. Both states have significant room for improvement if our actual legal protections for religious liberty are going to catch up with our vocal support of it. … There are two main safeguards in which Oklahoma does more to protect religious liberty than Texas — opportunities for absentee voting and health care exemptions. Texas is one of only 10 states that does not allow for absentee voting due to religious holidays or other religious reasons. Oklahoma, however, not only offers protections in the area of voting, but it uses the most flexible approach, which is to allow citizens to vote absentee without being asked to provide a reason for why they cannot vote in person. In the area of health care exemptions, neither Oklahoma nor Texas is excelling. While both states protect the right of an individual practitioner or a private hospital to refuse to perform an abortion, Oklahoma goes one step further and protects the refuser from civil liability. However, these protections only account for two (Texas) and three (Oklahoma) out of the possible 20 safeguards in the area of health care exemptions that the project tracks, meaning there is a lot of room for improvement in this area for both states. … _Read the entire article in the_ Tulsa World _[here](https://tulsaworld.com/opinion/columnists/column-oklahoma-edges-out-texas-in-protecting-religious-liberty/article_e07ec914-3ebd-11ed-aaac-d36f4df7389e.html)_. --- --- title: "Townhall: Understanding the Role States Have in Protecting Liberty" url: "https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/townhall-understanding-the-role-states-have-in-protecting-liberty/" lang: "en-US" type: "post" description: "Editor's Note: The following op-ed was published in Townhall on September 25, 2022, and is authored by Patrick M. Garry, professor of law at the University of South Dakota and a fellow at the Center for Religion, Culture & Democracy." last_modified: "2026-07-14T14:00:20+00:00" categories: [News] --- # Townhall: Understanding the Role States Have in Protecting Liberty _Editor’s Note: The following op-ed was [published](https://townhall.com/columnists/patrickgarry/2022/09/25/the-dobbs-effect-understanding-the-role-states-have-in-protecting-liberty-n2613523) in _Townhall_ on September 25, 2022, and is authored by Patrick M. Garry, professor of law at the University of South Dakota and a fellow at the Center for Religion, Culture & Democracy._ In the wake of the _Dobbs _decision sending abortion regulations back to the states, the nation has been reminded of a fundamental truth of U.S. history and government: matters of individual liberty are not the sole province of the U.S. Constitution or of the federal government. However, since the Supreme Court expanded the reach of the U.S. Constitution into areas of individual liberty in the 1960s, Americans have increasingly seen liberty as exclusively arising from or protected by the Bill of Rights. This perception contradicts both the history of liberty in the United States and the structure of federalism built into the American constitutional scheme. Federalism creates separate and autonomous governing entities between state and federal governments. Each possesses a distinct realm of sovereignty and legal authority, but a state’s laws exert a substantial and underrecognized impact on individual liberty within its borders. Consequently, an understanding of liberty in America requires understanding how state laws impact that liberty. And achieving this understanding can facilitate a greater appreciation for the way liberty is either protected or threatened in contemporary America.  When it comes to the states’ protection (or lack thereof) of religious liberty in particular, the Center for Religion, Culture & Democracy (CRCD)’s new study, [Religious Liberty in the States](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/) (RLS)_, _is a valuable tool in understanding of the status of religious liberty in America today. With a comprehensive analysis of state laws that affect religious liberty, RLS examines all 50 states, giving each an overall score and ranking for its treatment of religious liberty issues. Such an all-state study has never before been attempted, but it is necessary if one wants to truly understand the status of religious liberty in America. … _Read the entire op-ed in _Townhall_ [here](https://townhall.com/columnists/patrickgarry/2022/09/25/the-dobbs-effect-understanding-the-role-states-have-in-protecting-liberty-n2613523)._ --- --- title: "How Will the RLS Rankings Change After Dobbs?" url: "https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/how-will-the-rls-rankings-change-after-dobbs/" lang: "en-US" type: "post" description: "The inaugural Religious Liberty in the States (RLS) index ranks the fifty states for how well they protect religious liberty in 2022. Of course, the legal landscape in each state will change with time, which is why we’ve designed the" last_modified: "2026-07-14T14:00:21+00:00" categories: [News] --- # How Will the RLS Rankings Change After Dobbs? The inaugural Religious Liberty in the States (RLS) index ranks the fifty states for how well they protect religious liberty in 2022. Of course, the legal landscape in each state will change with time, which is why we’ve designed the Index to be updated each year and reflect changes in specific statutes, account for adjustments in jurisdiction (such as a shift of authority from federal to state), and add new items as they prove relevant and feasible. One area that we are already watching closely is how the states are reacting to the recent Supreme Court (SCOTUS) decision in [_Dobbs v. Jackson _(2022)](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf) which shifted to the states the authority to decide whether (or in what situations) abortion is legal. ## **How the RLS Currently Measures Abortion Issues** It is important to note that the legality of abortion or its limitations does not directly affect the Index, nor is it likely to in the future. Because RLS is a measure of how much space states allow for the free exercise of religion, the legality of abortion itself will only become an issue for RLS if states codify abortion rights in law with the expressed intent of providing a right to abortion for religious purposes. There are no states that have made abortion a legal right for those with religious beliefs that require it. And, thus far, the majority of religious persons arguing for abortion rights from that perspective are drawing on a [general religious concern for justice](https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/08/religious-liberty-is-for-pro-choice-people-too.html), not that abortion is religious exercise. Currently, where RLS is concerned with anything health-care related, it is concerned only with the rights of health-care practitioners to refuse participation in procedures that go against their religious beliefs. Therefore, RLS does not need to take a stand on whether the procedure itself should be legal, but only whether religious people have the freedom to choose how they participate or even abstain from participation altogether. On December 31, 2021, when we measured the various safeguards, abortion was legal in all states due to the standing SCOTUS decision in _Roe v. Wade_. While state laws about the legality of abortion varied, federal law superseded state law. Consequently, any state that did not have an explicit protection for religious providers, individuals, private hospitals, and public hospitals, and that did not explicitly preclude penalties for refusal (e.g. civil and criminal liability and consequences from the states) in the right to refuse participation in abortion failed to safeguard its citizens in this domain. If a protection did exist within a state, it received a score of 1; if it did not exist, the score was 0. ![CRCD Flow Chart v3 Roe](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/wp-content/media/CRCD-Flow-Chart_v3-Roe-1200x986.jpg) Learn more about how the scoring for the Index works [here](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/methodology/). ## **How Will the RLS Rankings Change After Dobbs?** The Dobbs decision will have implications for the 2023 RLS index and beyond. Primarily, we will consider whether or not abortion is legal in any case in the state. In any state where abortion is legal in some or all cases, the Index will discern whether it grants a specific right to refuse participation. So, if the letter of a state’s law allows any abortion and its refusal rights remain constant, its score on the 2023 index will not change from that in 2022. Take as examples the following four diverse scenarios: - State allows abortion in limited cases and grants _no right to refusal_. Score 0 - State allows abortion in limited cases and codifies_ a right to refusal_. Score 1 - State allows abortion in many-all cases and grants _no right to refusal_. Score 0 - State allows abortion in many-all cases and codifies _a right to refusal_. Score 1 There is only one scenario in which a state’s score may change—that is if a state does not allow abortion in any circumstance and also does not grant a right of refusal. If it is not legal in any case, then a state will not need to provide a specific safeguard for a person to have a right to refuse participation. This is what we call a “missing” right to refusal. Such a state would score a 0 in the 2022 Index because federal law making abortion legal superseded state law and if the state does not specifically protect the right to refuse, then under federal law it was not protecting religious liberty in this area, which meant its score was 0. However, with the change in federal law, the state now bans abortion and no longer needs a specific safeguard in order to protect religious liberty, so its score would change to a 1. ![CRCD Flow Chart v3 Dobbs](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/wp-content/media/CRCD-Flow-Chart_v3-Dobbs-1200x986.jpg) It is important to notice that the scores do not reflect the legality of abortion in a state. What does impact the score in a state will be if it requires an explicit safeguard to protect religious liberty and, if so, whether it provides that safeguard. ## **The Flexibility and Longevity of RLS** How RLS will adapt to _Dobbs_ is a very timely question, but this example is not going to be a unique situation over time. This one legal change demonstrates that as the legislative landscape continues to evolve, RLS can grow and adapt to reflect the reality of religious liberty in the states. _Interested in learning more about how RLS 2022 works? See our _[_methodology page_](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/methodology/)_ or download the _[_full report_](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/downloads/)_ for more information.  _ --- --- title: "RealClear Religion: Religious Liberty Beyond Red and Blue Divides" url: "https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/realclear-religion-religious-liberty-beyond-red-and-blue-divides/" lang: "en-US" type: "post" description: "Editor’s Note: The following op-ed was published in RealClear Religion on September 16, 2022, and is authored by Sarah Estelle, director of Religious Liberty in the States, associate professor of economics at Hope College (Holland, MI), and the founding director" last_modified: "2026-07-14T13:59:49+00:00" categories: [News] --- # RealClear Religion: Religious Liberty Beyond Red and Blue Divides _Editor’s Note: The following op-ed was _[_published_](https://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2022/09/16/religious_liberty_beyond_red_and_blue_divides_853926.html)_ in _RealClear Religion_ on September 16, 2022, and is authored by Sarah Estelle, director of Religious Liberty in the States, associate professor of economics at Hope College (Holland, MI), and the founding director of Hope’s Markets & Morality student program._ Many American voters head into midterm elections wearied by political polarization. Subjects that might have merely led to an uncomfortable dinner table conversation yesterday are more likely to be relationship-ending today.  It’s often assumed that political positions come with a Democrat or Republican party label. But beneath many of the most divisive issues of our time – think the COVID-19 pandemic response, the 2020 election, and the overturning of Roe v. Wade – lies an issue that is neither red nor blue. Would you believe me if I said religious liberty is not actually a partisan issue?  While religious liberty has long been perceived to be a “conservative” value, a careful study of state law helpfully complicates that simplistic narrative. A new project by the Center for Religion, Culture & Democracy reveals a surprising reality: several traditionally blue states do a better job protecting religious liberty than many red states.   The innovative project Religious Liberty in the States scores and ranks the 50 states on how well each protects religious liberty through state law. The project is a statistical index and comprehensive catalogue of legal safeguards for the free exercise of religion, covering 29 items in total, including protections for religious exemptions for school immunization requirements; businesses to refuse to participate in same-sex weddings; absentee voting on religious holidays; health care provisions that allow for provider refusal of abortion, sterilization, and contraception; and many others. As the index finds, the evolution of state law on religious liberty issues has resulted in no clear partisan divide. There are both red and blue states at the top and bottom of the rankings. “Red” Mississippi ranked first, followed closely by “blue” Illinois. Texas, known for its strong evangelical voter base, is smack dab in the middle. While a few of the bluest states rank in the bottom three – California (48th) and New York (50th) – other blue states such as Washington (5th), Maryland (8th), Connecticut (11th), and Maine (14th) scored in the top third. Presidential politics and political stereotypes simply cannot explain the pattern of religious protections at the state level.  … _Read the entire op-ed in _RealClear Religion_ _[_here_](https://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2022/09/16/religious_liberty_beyond_red_and_blue_divides_853926.html)_._ --- --- title: "Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: Religious freedom in Pennsylvania is good but could be better" url: "https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/pittsburgh-post-gazette-religious-freedom-in-pennsylvania-is-good-but-could-be-better/" lang: "en-US" type: "post" description: "Editor’s Note: The following op-ed was published in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette on September 14, 2022, and is authored by Jordan Ballor, director of research at the Center for Religion, Culture & Democracy at First Liberty Institute. Pennsylvania came in 12th" last_modified: "2026-07-14T13:59:50+00:00" categories: [News] custom_fields: iawp_total_views: 2 --- # Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: Religious freedom in Pennsylvania is good but could be better _Editor’s Note: The following op-ed was _[_published_](https://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/Op-Ed/2022/09/14/jordan-j-ballor-religious-freedom-in-pennsylvania-good-but-could-be-better/stories/202209140010)_ in the _Pittsburgh Post-Gazette_ on September 14, 2022, and is authored by Jordan Ballor, director of research at the Center for Religion, Culture & Democracy at First Liberty Institute._ Pennsylvania came in 12th among the states, tied with Alabama. But it was second in the mid-Atlantic region, behind 8th place Maryland. That’s its rank in how well it is doing in protecting the rights of diverse religious adherents, as measured in a new index of safeguards of religious exercise across the fifty states. Religious freedom is in the state’s DNA. The colony of Pennsylvania was founded in 1681, when William Penn was given a royal charter by King Charles II of England. Penn’s Quaker convictions led him to view this project as a “holy experiment,” intended to show that adherents of different religious sects and confessions could fruitfully co-exist. The early years of this experiment were fraught. But a century later Pennsylvania’s first state constitution would declare “that all men have a natural and unalienable right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences and understanding.” … A significant contributor to Pennsylvania’s score is the state’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which was passed in 2002. Pennsylvania is one of only 23 states to have taken such action to restrict the burden that state laws can place on religious expression and exercise. While many of the issues covered by the index relate to specific concerns about health care or marriage, RFRAs protect religious believers of all kinds from all kinds of government imposition. Pennsylvania also protects the rights of parents to exempt their children from immunizations that violate their beliefs, a safeguard dating back decades. Pennsylvania’s absentee voting policy protects the voting rights of religious believers of whatever creed or confession who object to going to a polling place on a particular day. Some of the other safeguards instantiated in Pennsylvania law are of more recent vintage, though, or are the result of shifting federal contexts. Pennsylvania’s lack of a state-level contraceptive mandate for employers, deriving from the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate, is notable. This requirement was made famous by a Pennsylvania lawsuit that was sparked by an ultimately failed attempt to impose the mandate on the Little Sisters of the Poor, a Catholic religious order. … Pennsylvania is doing better than most of its peers in protecting the space for varied religious expression. But a state that began as an experiment in religious liberty can do more. _Read the entire op-ed in the _Pittsburgh Post-Gazette_ _[_here_](https://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/Op-Ed/2022/09/14/jordan-j-ballor-religious-freedom-in-pennsylvania-good-but-could-be-better/stories/202209140010)_._ --- --- title: "Subscribe to Email Updates" url: "https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/subscribe/" lang: "en-US" type: "page" description: "Title Sign up for updates about Religious Liberty in the States. You can unsubscribe using the link at the bottom of each email." last_modified: "2026-06-29T19:21:47+00:00" custom_fields: iawp_total_views: 21 --- # Subscribe to Email Updates # Title Sign up for updates about Religious Liberty in the States. You can unsubscribe using the link at the bottom of each email. --- --- title: "Federal Context, State Inaction, and Social Norms" url: "https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/federal-context-state-inaction-and-social-norms/" lang: "en-US" type: "page" description: "Safeguards The table below provides more detail for two of our FAQs specifically revealing why it is necessary to account for federal context when determining whether a \"missing\" exemption is a lack of safeguard or not, and whether social norms" last_modified: "2022-09-09T20:54:34+00:00" custom_fields: iawp_total_views: 3 --- # Federal Context, State Inaction, and Social Norms # Safeguards The table below provides more detail for two of our [FAQs](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/faq/) specifically revealing why - it is necessary to account for federal context when determining whether a “missing” exemption is a lack of safeguard or not, and - whether social norms and community attitudes might substitute for missing statutory safeguards. While the following treats these together, a (1) or (2) below indicates roughly the portion that addresses the particular item above. In rows B and C, all states are active, dictating how voters can participate and that (in all states) children of a certain age must be immunized. A missing exemption or alternative accommodation (1), therefore leaves religious voters without a potential safeguard. Furthermore, (2) social norms cannot nullify voting procedures or state mandates. In rows D and E, the federal government is setting various precedents that suggest safeguards would be valuable. (2) A healthy pluralism may substitute to some degree for explicit legal safeguards, but where there is a nationwide precedent, the protection of a community’s tolerance may only pan out partially and on average. Depending on the balance struck between competing rights claims over time, social norms may wane in their effectiveness. (1) A missing exemption, then, leaves state residents unprotected. In the case of the health insurance contraceptive mandate on employers (row F), (1) we recognize that states that do not have their own contraceptive mandate have no need to make exemptions, and we score this as implicitly safeguarded. States that do have mandates, though, (2) cannot explain away the lack of safeguard based on healthy social norms, since norms cannot invalidate statewide legal mandates. So perhaps RFRA (row A) is of the greatest concern in these regards. One might argue that (2) a state characterized by healthy civil society and positive pluralism may not need a written RFRA. But this neglects the fact that RFRA provisions are intended to give legal standing to religious entities when burdens arise even inadvertently through rules of general applicability. As state laws proliferate and change over time, any state-no matter how healthy-can run afoul of fundamental religious liberty rights, especially those of minority religionists or otherwise marginalized groups. (1) RFRA provisions only lack value added where state populations, their legislators, and judges are perfectly homogeneous. Still, we leave it to other researchers to explore the relationship between social norms and attitudes and RFRA provisions. It is an empirical question whether RFRA laws are more likely to arise within healthy, pluralist communities or within those where the risks to religious liberty are otherwise greatest. **Scoring State Inaction, with Special Attention to Federal Influence** | Row | Group | Any Federal Influence? | Are States Active? | So no explicit safeguard implies… | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | A | RFRA | No. Federal RFRA has no jurisdiction in states. | It’s complicated. All states may inadvertently burden religious entities through rules of general applicability. | … it is not safeguarding. (score=0) | | B | Absentee Voting | No. | Yes. All states have election laws. | …it is not safeguarding.(score=0) | | C | Childhood Immunization Requirements | No. | Yes. All states have childhood immunization requirements. | … it is not safeguarding.(score=0) | | D | Health-Care Provision | It’s complicated. Federal law protects practitioners from religious discrimination, and many federal statutes contain conscience protections. | Some. States may extend additional protections (beyond those in federal law). | … it is not safeguarding.(score=0) | | E | Marriage & Weddings | Yes. Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) confers a nationwide right to same-sex marriage. | Some. Even if a state does not in the letter of its law recognize same-sex marriage or provide any other reason why an entity may be legally compelled to participate in a marriage ceremony or celebration (e.g., explicit statement of this duty via antidiscrimination law), states can (and some do) exempt entities from participating in weddings or marriage celebrations against the teaching of their religion. | …it is not safeguarding.(score=0) | | F | Health Insurance Contraceptive Mandate | Yes. The federal Affordable Care Act imposes a contraceptive mandate for health insurance plans, but current regulations allow an exemption for a broad array of employers with religious or moral objections. | Some. Some states do not have their own contraceptive mandates and so cannot shrink the space for free exercise. | … it is not safeguarding if it has a contraceptive mandate. (score=0) … it is safeguarding (by omission of the mandate) the maximum level of exemption based on the federal law. (score=1) | --- --- title: "Announcing RLS 2022’s #1 State: Mississippi" url: "https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/announcing-rls-2022s-1-state-mississippi/" lang: "en-US" type: "post" description: "Mississippi has undertaken important steps to allow the free exercise of religion within its borders and, in doing so, has earned the highest score of all fifty states in the inaugural Religious Liberty in the States (RLS) rankings. The Magnolia" last_modified: "2026-07-14T14:00:43+00:00" categories: [News] --- # Announcing RLS 2022’s #1 State: Mississippi Mississippi has undertaken important steps to allow the free exercise of religion within its borders and, in doing so, has earned the highest score of all fifty states in the inaugural Religious Liberty in the States (RLS) rankings. The Magnolia State achieved this [top spot with 82 percent](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/mississippi/) of the total potential safeguards tracked by the RLS index, narrowly beating out Illinois’ score of 81 percent. These two states stand well above the third-place finisher, New Mexico, with a score of 61 percent. In fact, the average score of all fifty states is only 39 percent, making Mississippi’s score more than double that of the average state. The RLS index captures the extent to which people have the freedom to practice their religion in everyday life based on their state’s laws, not just their ability to gather for worship. Here are three key areas of statutory law that make Mississippi uniquely effective in safeguarding religious liberty. ## General Conscience Safeguard In 1998, Mississippi passed a [rare safeguard](https://advance.lexis.com/documentpage/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=14d1490f-529d-413e-b429-65d3c95763be&nodeid=AAWABHAANAAI&nodepath=%2fROOT%2fAAW%2fAAWABH%2fAAWABHAAN%2fAAWABHAANAAI&level=4&haschildren=&populated=false&title=%C2%A7+41-41-215.+Health-care+provider+or+institution+responsibilities.&config=00JABhZDIzMTViZS04NjcxLTQ1MDItOTllOS03MDg0ZTQxYzU4ZTQKAFBvZENhdGFsb2f8inKxYiqNVSihJeNKRlUp&pddocfullpath=%2fshared%2fdocument%2fstatutes-legislation%2furn%3acontentItem%3a8P6B-83B2-D6RV-H4Y5-00008-00&ecomp=vg1_kkk&prid=fde7a80a-0e1a-436b-9d85-ccf1c4acdd32) protecting health-care providers’ rights to refuse to participate in any procedure or service for reasons of conscience. In 2004, the [Mississippi Health Care Rights of Conscience Act](https://advance.lexis.com/documentpage/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=067c520b-6727-483a-bcfd-ca9e115eb7d2&nodeid=AAWACUAAB&nodepath=%2FROOT%2FAAW%2FAAWACU%2FAAWACUAAB&level=3&haschildren=&populated=false&title=%C2%A7+41-107-1.+Title.&config=00JABhZDIzMTViZS04NjcxLTQ1MDItOTllOS03MDg0ZTQxYzU4ZTQKAFBvZENhdGFsb2f8inKxYiqNVSihJeNKRlUp&pddocfullpath=%2Fshared%2Fdocument%2Fstatutes-legislation%2Furn%3AcontentItem%3A8P6B-83C2-D6RV-H09J-00008-00&ecomp=vg1_kkk&prid=a4f7c883-d75c-48c9-b457-e9053b10ca46) reiterated and expanded the protection of health-care providers and health-care [payers](https://advance.lexis.com/documentpage/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=95d90f2f-4591-4adb-aa18-6cbc4f04065b&pdistocdocslideraccess=true&config=00JABhZDIzMTViZS04NjcxLTQ1MDItOTllOS03MDg0ZTQxYzU4ZTQKAFBvZENhdGFsb2f8inKxYiqNVSihJeNKRlUp&pddocfullpath=%2Fshared%2Fdocument%2Fstatutes-legislation%2Furn%3AcontentItem%3A8P6B-83C2-D6RV-H09K-00008-00&pdcomponentid=234191&pdtocnodeidentifier=AAWACUAAC&ecomp=pghckkk&prid=11b457dc-934a-4993-b546-2db9df9f530d) who act according to their religious and moral beliefs from a variety of potential punishments, including criminal and civil liability claims.  While some states protect health-care providers’ right to refuse participation in specific procedures—such as abortion, sterilization, and contraception—Mississippi is one of only five states that allows practitioners to refuse participation in any procedure that violates their conscience. Because this statute is open-ended in terms of the variety of procedures included, the types of providers covered, and the punishments precluded, it checks 20 out of 20 boxes for potential health-care safeguards in this year’s Index. Mississippi’s [general conscience provision](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/safeguard/health-care-provision-open-ended-conscience-exemption/) is more expansive than any other state’s, meaning health-care practitioners in Mississippi are freer to engage in their work in accordance with their religion compared to anywhere else in the United States. ## Religious Freedom Restoration Act In 2014, Mississippi established a [Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)](https://advance.lexis.com/documentpage/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=83481f51-fb1f-4589-9ce2-0c349935e0e3&nodeid=AAHABIAAB&nodepath=%2FROOT%2FAAH%2FAAHABI%2FAAHABIAAB&level=3&haschildren=&populated=false&title=%C2%A7+11-61-1.+Mississippi+Religious+Freedom+Restoration+Act%3B+legislative+findings%3B+purpose%3B+applicability%3B+relation+to+First+Amendment.&config=00JABhZDIzMTViZS04NjcxLTQ1MDItOTllOS03MDg0ZTQxYzU4ZTQKAFBvZENhdGFsb2f8inKxYiqNVSihJeNKRlUp&pddocfullpath=%2Fshared%2Fdocument%2Fstatutes-legislation%2Furn%3AcontentItem%3A8P6B-7Y92-8T6X-73X2-00008-00&ecomp=vg1_kkk&prid=d52be90c-9c37-4b81-9e0d-cc351f75c0d9), which is a type of statute designed to protect the ability of individuals and organizations to exercise their religion when other laws inadvertently burden or restrict their ability to do so. Mississippi’s RFRA can be used to safeguard the religious liberty of people practicing minority religions and majority religions alike by giving those individuals legal standing in cases where they may otherwise lack protections. So far, Mississippi’s RFRA safeguarded the freedom to attend [drive-in church services](https://firstliberty.org/media/church-intimidated-by-police-for-drive-in-church-files-federal-lawsuit-against-mayor-city/), and in 2020, it expanded to include rights of [Indian Tribal members](https://advance.lexis.com/documentpage/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=462b849e-0e12-4e01-a6ec-237629ce6566&pdistocdocslideraccess=true&config=00JABhZDIzMTViZS04NjcxLTQ1MDItOTllOS03MDg0ZTQxYzU4ZTQKAFBvZENhdGFsb2f8inKxYiqNVSihJeNKRlUp&pddocfullpath=%2Fshared%2Fdocument%2Fstatutes-legislation%2Furn%3AcontentItem%3A616G-MYB3-GXJ9-30SF-00008-00&pdcomponentid=234191&pdtocnodeidentifier=AAHABIAAC&ecomp=pghckkk&prid=83481f51-fb1f-4589-9ce2-0c349935e0e3) to wear tribal regalia and other culturally significant objects at public events. For states looking to establish a RFRA or improve their current one, Mississippi provides a great example. ## Protecting Private Businesses from Government Discrimination Perhaps the most unique contribution Mississippi has made to safeguarding religious liberty is the [Protecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act](https://advance.lexis.com/documentpage/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=b48d2f80-c020-4196-b1ba-e6b6c7418c5d&action=pawlinkdoc&pdcomponentid=&pddocfullpath=%2Fshared%2Fdocument%2Fstatutes-legislation%2Furn%3AcontentItem%3A8P6B-7Y92-8T6X-73X4-00008-00&pdtocnodeidentifier=AAHABJAAB&config=00JABhZDIzMTViZS04NjcxLTQ1MDItOTllOS03MDg0ZTQxYzU4ZTQKAFBvZENhdGFsb2f8inKxYiqNVSihJeNKRlUp&ecomp=pghckkk&prid=fcdd4829-6779-44b9-a624-f0c791d70ff5), which was passed in 2016. This act ensures, among other protections, that clergy, religious entities, public officials, and for-profit businesses can choose to abstain from performing wedding services or participating in marriage celebrations that would conflict with “[sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction](https://advance.lexis.com/documentpage/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=58d5be40-ccbe-425b-bbac-98b67fac7322&action=pawlinkdoc&pdcomponentid=&pddocfullpath=%2Fshared%2Fdocument%2Fstatutes-legislation%2Furn%3AcontentItem%3A8P6B-7Y92-8T6X-73X6-00008-00&pdtocnodeidentifier=AAHABJAAD&config=00JABhZDIzMTViZS04NjcxLTQ1MDItOTllOS03MDg0ZTQxYzU4ZTQKAFBvZENhdGFsb2f8inKxYiqNVSihJeNKRlUp&ecomp=pghckkk&prid=b48d2f80-c020-4196-b1ba-e6b6c7418c5d).”  No other state has codified into law such a protection for private businesses, and in some cases, states have even [attempted to limit free exercise](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf) by requiring business owners to participate in wedding celebrations against their will. This means that Mississippi is currently the only state where a small business owner like a baker or a photographer could decline to participate in a wedding for religious reasons and be protected by state law. This is a frontier of religious liberty protections and provides a model for other states who are interested in providing more protections for the private sector. ## Mississippi’s Room for Improvement While Mississippi has actively safeguarded religious liberty in many areas of life, there is more it can do to allow space for free exercise of religion. Its score of 82 percent is currently the highest in the nation, but the state is missing other protections that could help it earn an A+ grade in the future. For example, Mississippi is one of only ten states that does not allow for absentee voting due to religious holidays or other religious reasons. Of the forty states that do offer some protections in the area of voting, the most flexible approach is to allow citizens to vote absentee without providing a reason for why they cannot vote in person, such as the recent [Rhode Island bill](https://governor.ri.gov/press-releases/governor-mckee-signs-let-ri-vote-act) signed into law just this year. Mississippi should consider passing similar voting protections to improve their score in this area. Mississippi is also one of only five states that does not provide religious exemptions from immunizations requirements for school-aged children. Over the [last five years](https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/school-immunization-exemption-state-laws.aspx), four states removed religious and/or personal belief exemptions from childhood immunization requirements, while others increased the burden of obtaining a valid exemption. Mississippi could counteract this trend by intentionally carving out space for parents to make choices that align with their religious beliefs.  Safeguarding religious liberty encompasses more than simply securing the right to religious assembly and worship. For many people the ways they work, enjoy their families, engage with their communities, and participate in their civic responsibilities will reflect their religious beliefs. All states and elected officials should defend these First Amendment freedoms. The state of Mississippi deserves recognition for the important steps it has taken in these areas and for earning the top spot in our rankings in 2022. _Want to see where your state ranks? Check out the _[_RLS index state ranking_](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/)_ or access the _[_2022 RLS Full Report_](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/downloads/)_ to learn more._ --- --- title: "Announcing RLS 2022’s Runner-up State: Illinois" url: "https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/announcing-rls-2022s-runner-up-state-illinois/" lang: "en-US" type: "post" description: "Illinois has a wide range of state laws protecting the free exercise of religion—some that have been on the books for decades, and others that have been implemented recently—earning the second-highest score of all fifty states in the inaugural Religious" last_modified: "2026-07-14T14:00:45+00:00" categories: [News] --- # Announcing RLS 2022’s Runner-up State: Illinois Illinois has a wide range of state laws protecting the free exercise of religion—some that have been on the books for decades, and others that have been implemented recently—earning the second-highest score of all fifty states in the inaugural Religious Liberty in the States (RLS) rankings. With a [score of 81 percent](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/illinois/), Illinois falls just behind Mississippi’s score (82 percent), but this photo finish puts both states far ahead of the third-place finisher, New Mexico (61 percent). In fact, Illinois’ score puts it far ahead of other states with large populations, such as [New York](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/new-york/) (16 percent), [California](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/california/) (19 percent), and [Texas](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/texas/) (39 percent). The RLS index captures the extent to which people have the freedom to practice their religion in everyday life based on their state’s laws, not just their ability to gather for worship. Here are just some of the state laws, both old and new, that make Illinois such a great place for religious liberty in 2022. ## **General Conscience Safeguard** Illinois has been on the forefront of general conscience safeguards in health care for nearly fifty years. In 1977, Illinois enacted its first version of the [Health Care Right of Conscience Act](https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=2082&ChapterID=58), which protects private and public health-care facilities and personnel from participating in any phase of patient care that conflicts with their conscience, except in the case of emergencies. Not only are health-care providers granted a legal right to refuse, but they are protected from any civil or criminal liability claims as well as government punishments.  Additionally, this act protects health-care payers and, in effect, provides an exemption for religious employers who would otherwise be subject to Illinois’ contraceptive mandate.  In terms of religious liberty, Illinois offers good statutory health-care conscience protections because it allows all health-care providers to work freely in accordance with their consciences, morals, or the tenets of their faith without repercussion. Notably, a person could ascribe to any religion or none at all and still be protected by these general conscience safeguards. Because Illinois’ statutes uphold the right for health-care providers, personnel, and payers to live according to conscience, they check 19 out of 20 boxes for potential health-care safeguards in this year’s Index.  ## **Religious Freedom Restoration Act** After the Supreme Court verdict in [_City of Boerne v. Flores_](https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep521/usrep521507/usrep521507.pdf)_ _limited federal religious freedom protections in 1997, Illinois enacted its own [Religious Freedom Restoration Act](https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=2272&ChapterID=64) (RFRA) in 1998. RFRA statutes are designed to protect the ability of religious people to exercise their religion when other laws, even if inadvertently, would burden or restrict their ability to do so. Illinois’ RFRA establishes a heightened standard of review so that a law that would “substantially burden” religious exercise may only do so if it both “[furthers] a compelling governmental interest” and does so in “the least restrictive” way. Illinois’ RFRA (and others like it) can safeguard a wide variety of religious activities from government burden, especially religious minorities who may rely on RFRA provisions to protect expressions of their religious beliefs not yet protected by specific statutory safeguards. ## **Illinois’ Room for Improvement** Illinois is one of only three states that safeguards at least some people in all six safeguard groups measured by the RLS 2022 index (the other two being [Florida](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/florida/) and [Connecticut](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/connecticut/)). However, if Illinois wants to challenge Mississippi for the top spot in the rankings in the future, there are several safeguards the state could implement or expand. For one, the state does not extend its safeguarding of health-care practioners’ consciences when an abortion is demanded in the case of emergency. This is the [only health-care safeguard tracked by our Index](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/safeguard/health-care-provision-abortion-refusal/) that Illinois does not currently secure. The area where Illinois has the most room for improvement is in marriage and weddings. While the state offers protections for [clergy and religious organizations](https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?ActID=2086&ChapterID=59&SeqStart=900000&SeqEnd=3000000), it does not extend the same protections for public officials or private businesses. This means that a minister could refuse to participate in a wedding for religious reasons and be protected by state law, but a caterer who would like to refuse to participate would not be extended the same protection. A strong example the state could look to is Mississippi’s [Protecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act](https://advance.lexis.com/documentpage/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=b48d2f80-c020-4196-b1ba-e6b6c7418c5d&action=pawlinkdoc&pdcomponentid=&pddocfullpath=%2Fshared%2Fdocument%2Fstatutes-legislation%2Furn%3AcontentItem%3A8P6B-7Y92-8T6X-73X4-00008-00&pdtocnodeidentifier=AAHABJAAB&config=00JABhZDIzMTViZS04NjcxLTQ1MDItOTllOS03MDg0ZTQxYzU4ZTQKAFBvZENhdGFsb2f8inKxYiqNVSihJeNKRlUp&ecomp=pghckkk&prid=fcdd4829-6779-44b9-a624-f0c791d70ff5), which ensures that clergy, religious entities, public officials, and for-profit businesses can choose to abstain from performing wedding services or participating in marriage celebrations that would conflict with “[sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction](https://advance.lexis.com/documentpage/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=58d5be40-ccbe-425b-bbac-98b67fac7322&action=pawlinkdoc&pdcomponentid=&pddocfullpath=%2Fshared%2Fdocument%2Fstatutes-legislation%2Furn%3AcontentItem%3A8P6B-7Y92-8T6X-73X6-00008-00&pdtocnodeidentifier=AAHABJAAD&config=00JABhZDIzMTViZS04NjcxLTQ1MDItOTllOS03MDg0ZTQxYzU4ZTQKAFBvZENhdGFsb2f8inKxYiqNVSihJeNKRlUp&ecomp=pghckkk&prid=b48d2f80-c020-4196-b1ba-e6b6c7418c5d).”  Illinois’ long history of protecting religious liberty has set an excellent example for other states to follow. The focus on protecting the right to act according to one’s conscience, rather than requiring a religious rationale, allows for broad protections for all its citizens to live according to their beliefs. The state of Illinois narrowly missed out on taking the top spot in 2022 but still deserves recognition for its accomplishments.  _Want to see where your state ranks? Check out the _[_RLS index state ranking_](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/)_ or access the _[_2022 RLS Full Report_](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/downloads/)_ to learn more._ --- --- title: "What Is the Religious Liberty in the States Index & How Does It Work?" url: "https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/what-is-the-religious-liberty-in-the-states-index-how-does-it-work/" lang: "en-US" type: "post" description: "The First Amendment in the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution establishes that people have the right to freely exercise their religion. However, where states have jurisdiction or federal laws are silent, states have the opportunity to protect certain" last_modified: "2026-07-14T14:00:47+00:00" categories: [News] --- # What Is the Religious Liberty in the States Index & How Does It Work? The First Amendment in the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution establishes that people have the right to freely exercise their religion. However, where states have jurisdiction or federal laws are silent, states have the opportunity to protect certain aspects of the free exercise of religion for people in their everyday lives. While many states have passed laws securing at least some provisions and exemptions for religious expression, some states do more than others. The variation in protections from state to state means that a person’s ability to live according to their religious beliefs greatly depends on which state they live in. With the inaugural Religious Liberty in the States (RLS) index, you can find out where your state ranks for religious liberty, which rights your state protects, and which rights it does not. ## How Is the RLS Index Different from Other Indexes? The RLS index is a measure of laws and constitutional safeguards for religious exercise in the fifty states. Unlike other indexes of religious liberty, this indicates the extent to which _written _law allows people to live according to their religious beliefs, rather than assessing what people do with religious liberty or attitudes toward religion in the states. This measure of the space in which people can freely live according to their religion highlights the ways states currently uphold commitments to religious liberty, as well as the areas where opportunities for improvement exist within state law. And because RLS does so with a focus on formal, recorded law, there are clear steps for a state that wants to see improvement. A concerned citizen can share the [information about the state](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/states/) from RLS with their elected representatives. Then state legislatures can write new laws, even making use of what their peers have accomplished in the relevant [safeguard area](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/safeguards/). ## How Does the RLS Index Measure Safeguards of Religious Liberty? The RLS index uses existing state laws as data. If even one state’s statutes identify an area of life as religiously relevant, those laws are candidates for analysis by RLS. (More of the selection criterion related to feasibility and objective measurement can be read in the [RLS 2022 report](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/downloads/) and on the website under [Methodology](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/methodology/).) For each data point (state law) included in the Index, it is determined to either safeguard religious liberty (score 1) or not (score 0). For 2022, the RLS index includes twenty-nine items that contribute to eleven distinct safeguards, which have been placed into six groups: - [Absentee Voting](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/safeguard/opportunity-for-absentee-voting/) - [Childhood Immunization Requirements](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/safeguard/exemptions-for-childhood-immunization-requirements/) - [Health-Care Provisions](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/safeguards/) - [Health Insurance Mandate](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/safeguard/employer-exemption-from-the-contraceptive-mandate/) (specifically regarding contraception) - [Marriage & Weddings](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/safeguards/) - [Religious Freedom Restoration Act](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/safeguard/religious-freedom-restoration-act/) The laws that comprise these safeguards are those that can be understood and scored objectively and are operable in light of current federal law. The averaged score of the eleven safeguards yields each state’s overall score (as a percentage), and those overall scores were used to determine the state rankings. For example, the top-ranked state is [Mississippi](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/mississippi/) with a score of 82 percent (fully realizing nine out of eleven safeguards), while the forty-third-ranked state is [New Hampshire](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/new-hampshire/) with a score of 27 percent (realizing at least parts of three out of eleven safeguards). See where your state ranks [here](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/states/). ## How Could the RLS Index Change Over Time? The Index will be updated annually to reflect changes in specific statutes, account for the adjustment in jurisdiction and balance of legislative power between the state and federal jurisdictions, and add new items as they prove feasible. For example, we anticipate new statutory laws and amendments to state constitutions in the aftermath of the recent Supreme Court decision in [_Dobbs v. Jackson_](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf), meaning that the 2023 version of the RLS index will be updated accordingly. Another item to look at will be how states conduct their 2022 elections as it relates to absentee voting. What the Index looks for in the area of absentee voting is if a person has alternative ways to vote should Election Day fall on a religious holiday or for other religious reasons. If a state conducts all-mail elections, for example, the Index will not be concerned whether the state explicitly lists religion as an excuse for absentee voting. A state that has all-mail elections or no-excuse absentee voting obtains the same score on that item as one that has strict protocols for absentee voting but allows for religion as a qualifying excuse. Since the implications of any of these approaches are ultimately the same for the free exercise of religion, so are the scores that states earn from them. You can learn more about the topic of religious exemptions for absentee voting [here](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/safeguard/opportunity-for-absentee-voting/). As the legislative landscape continues to evolve, the RLS index can continually grow and adapt to reflect the reality of religious liberty in the states. After a few annual iterations of the RLS index, people will be able to track how a state has increased the space for the free exercise of religion or shrunk it over time. We hope that the RLS index is a useful tool for people to learn about the legal safeguard for _their_ religious liberty and gives them a starting point to advocate for improved safeguards in their states. _Interested in learning more about how RLS 2022 works? See our _[_methodology page_](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/methodology/)_ or download the _[_full report_](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/downloads/)_ for more information._ --- --- title: "The Worst States for Religious Liberty All Lack RFRAs" url: "https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/the-worst-states-for-religious-liberty-all-lack-rfras/" lang: "en-US" type: "post" description: "The Religious Liberty in the States (RLS) index captures the extent to which people have the freedom to practice their religion in their everyday lives based on their state’s laws, including how they work, spend time with their families, and" last_modified: "2026-07-14T13:59:52+00:00" categories: [News] custom_fields: iawp_total_views: 8 --- # The Worst States for Religious Liberty All Lack RFRAs The Religious Liberty in the States (RLS) index captures the extent to which people have the freedom to practice their religion in their everyday lives based on their state’s laws, including how they work, spend time with their families, and engage with their communities. To do this, the Index examines twenty-nine statutory items that contribute to eleven distinct [safeguards](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/safeguards/). To calculate each state’s score in the RLS rankings, the eleven safeguards were weighted equally. However, some of the safeguards are very specific (such as protecting health-care practitioners in certain circumstances), while others provide more wide-ranging protection. The safeguard that applies to the widest range of people in the most varied situations is the presence of a [Religious Freedom Restoration Act](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/safeguard/religious-freedom-restoration-act/) (RFRA). ## **What Is a Religious Freedom Restoration Act?** A RFRA (pronounced _riff-ruh_) is a type of statute designed to protect the ability of individuals and organizations to exercise their religion when other laws inadvertently burden or restrict their ability to do so. In 1997, the Supreme Court decision in [_City of Boerne v. Flores_](https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep521/usrep521507/usrep521507.pdf) found the federal RFRA did not apply to states and therefore was only applicable at the federal level. Since then, many states have enacted laws patterned after the federal RFRA. A law is identifiable as a RFRA by language that provides  protection from _any_ unintended consequences or government burdens from other laws. Some states passed RFRA laws shortly after the federal court decision, while a number of others attempted to pass laws in 2015. The most recent RFRA laws took effect in 2021, nearly 25 years after the _Boerne_ decision. We hope RLS inspires other states to follow suit. For example, the Index’s top-ranked state, [Mississippi](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/mississippi/), has a well-tested RFRA. In 2020, it safeguarded the freedom to attend [drive-in church services](https://firstliberty.org/media/church-intimidated-by-police-for-drive-in-church-files-federal-lawsuit-against-mayor-city/), and it was expanded to include rights of [Indian Tribal members](https://advance.lexis.com/documentpage/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=462b849e-0e12-4e01-a6ec-237629ce6566&pdistocdocslideraccess=true&config=00JABhZDIzMTViZS04NjcxLTQ1MDItOTllOS03MDg0ZTQxYzU4ZTQKAFBvZENhdGFsb2f8inKxYiqNVSihJeNKRlUp&pddocfullpath=%2Fshared%2Fdocument%2Fstatutes-legislation%2Furn%3AcontentItem%3A616G-MYB3-GXJ9-30SF-00008-00&pdcomponentid=234191&pdtocnodeidentifier=AAHABIAAC&ecomp=pghckkk&prid=83481f51-fb1f-4589-9ce2-0c349935e0e3) to wear tribal regalia and other culturally significant objects at public events. ## **Which States Have RFRAs?** Twenty-two states have a current RFRA that they have passed as a state statute, and [Alabama](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/state/alabama/) is the only state to include a RFRA in its state constitution. This means that twenty-seven states do not have any kind of RFRA protecting the religious practice or expression of the people living in that state. Based on Census [estimates of state populations](https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?tid=PEPPOP2021.NST_EST2021_POP&hidePreview=false) as of July 2021, an estimated 175.4 million Americans (more than half of the US population) are living without a RFRA in their state. Notably, the bottom twelve states in the Index do not have a RFRA. Recall, this isn’t because a RFRA carries more weight in the Index calculation; it carries one-eleventh of the weight just like every other safeguard. Still, it appears significant for the fact that the lowest-ranking states have this lamentable fact in common. Put more positively, these lagging states have a clear road to improvement: they can pursue codifying RFRAs to protect free exercise in their states. By contrast, there are thirteen states in the top twelve spots in the rankings (Alabama and Pennsylvania are tied for twelfth place), and ten of them have RFRAs. Find out which states do and don’t have RFRAs [here](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/safeguard/religious-freedom-restoration-act/). ## **How Is the RFRA Scored in the RLS Index?** All of the RFRAs in the twenty-three states that have some version of the law serve a common purpose: to safeguard religious liberty across state laws, present and future, that might impose burdens on religious people. But these state RFRAs differ in some obvious ways, too, including language that seems to make some weaker or stronger. For example, some of these statutes use language as broad as “shall not restrict” religious freedom or “shall not burden,” while others take a seemingly weaker form by saying “shall not _substantially_ burden” (emphasis added). States also differ in the standards they set for what can justify a burden to religious freedom. In some states, a law that might burden religious expression must pass the high bar of being “essential” for furthering a “compelling government interest,” while other RFRAs require only that a rule furthers any state purpose. (Direct links to each state’s RFRA are available on [the RFRA safeguard page](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/safeguard/religious-freedom-restoration-act/).) In plain English, these words might convey different strengths of meaning. However, in practice, the strength of any given RFRA is decided by the interpretation of the courts in that state. For this reason, the RLS index only focuses on the existence of such laws. If a state has a RFRA, it scores a 1 for that safeguard; if it does not, it scores a 0. The Index constructs each state’s score by adding its 11 safeguard scores, dividing by 11, and multiplying by 100. Consequently, the final RLS index score for each state can be understood as a percent of the observed safeguards. This means that the official RLS index is an equal weighting of eleven safeguards, and the specific RFRA safeguard only accounts for 1/11th of the final score, or about 9 percent. Finally, this means that a state that currently lacks a RFRA could improve its overall score by 9 percent by passing one. _Are you curious to see how the state rankings would change if the RFRA was weighted more or less significantly? We have made the data available for all researchers to explore questions like these. Access the raw data and more resources, including the full report, _[_here_](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/downloads/)_._ --- --- title: "Frequently Asked Questions" url: "https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/faq/" lang: "en-US" type: "page" description: "Title Since the inception of Religious Liberty in the States, we have received thoughtful questions and feedback from readers. Search for your question below and click on the down arrow for answers. For other questions, including technical support, please contact" last_modified: "2026-05-29T14:41:39+00:00" custom_fields: iawp_total_views: 43 --- # Frequently Asked Questions # Title Since the inception of Religious Liberty in the States, we have received thoughtful questions and feedback from readers. Search for your question below and click on the down arrow for answers. For other questions, including technical support, please [contact us](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/contact/). ## Based on the items you identify, isn’t this just an index for freedom to be a Christian? No. This index draws from as many state statutes and constitutional provisions as possible to measure religiously relevant laws that might differ across states regardless of the religious motivation for the safeguard. Typically, states are not writing new laws to intentionally restrict religious liberty, and so the variation comes from states providing safeguards for free exercise, say, in otherwise religion-neutral laws. It is important that we allow states to indicate through the language of their laws (e.g., where they cite religious belief as providing an exemption) where their citizens, presumably, consider a law to potentially jeopardize free exercise. Laws protecting, say, a doctor from being forced to perform an abortion against her religious conviction protect equally Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and other physicians with such objections. In some cases, the protections we consider are more likely to protect non-Christians than Christians. Public school calendars usually protect the ability of Christians to worship on their Sabbath and enjoy important holy days. For instance, few if any school districts require school attendance on Sunday, and schools are usually not in session during the Christmas holiday season. Non-Christian holidays, however, are more likely to fall on days where students are expected to attend schools. State laws that require excused absences to students in this situation are thus more likely to protect non-Christians than Christians. ## Should the ability of citizens to act upon their religious convictions always be protected? No! On occasion, governments have a compelling interest in preventing someone from acting on a sincerely held religious belief. For example, states properly prohibit female genital mutilation, even if done for religious reasons. But these instances are rare, and they don’t apply to the protections we measure in RLS. ## What about those who have no faith and should be granted a right to conscience? We believe that non-religious conscience claims should be protected whenever possible, but to limit the scope of our study Religious Liberty in the States has chosen to focus on statutes that protect religious liberty. ## How does this Index handle states that aren’t acting in all the areas other states are? For instance, states that don’t have laws banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation? Some states have laws banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and then carve our exemptions to protect some individuals and entities (e.g., clergy and houses of worship). Other states don’t have laws banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. However, in these states localities may ban such discrimination, so state laws that protect individuals from being compelled to participate in, say, same-sex wedding ceremonies to which they have religious objections, are still valuable. ## Why don’t you consider zoning and land use or prison regulations? ## Zoning and Land Use According to Church Law & Tax (2022), zoning is one of the top five reasons religious organizations end up in court. However, zoning is largely outside the scope of our state-level index for two reasons. First, zoning laws and determinations are mostly local. (Any laws at a level more local than the state are not included in RLS.) Second, the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), signed into law in 2000, outlaws land use or zoning restrictions that impose a “substantial burden” on religious persons or organizations, with some limitations (42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc-2000cc5). This is not to say that religious organizations are never mistreated through local land use or zoning decisions, but it does suggest the potential scope for even local variation in these regulations is diminished. ## Prison Regulations Whether state prisons offer kosher and halal meals to incarcerated individuals, whether Sikhs, Muslims, and Jews can maintain facial hair, whether Rastafarians and Sikhs can keep longer hair-all of these are real issues of religious liberty. Regulations on dress, grooming, and personal possessions (including of religious items), as well as the availability of special diets and access to religious services, all contribute to a religious person’s capacity for free exercise in a state’s corrections system. While many court cases indicate this as an active area for religious liberty concerns, we do not include measures of prison regulations in the Index because RLUIPA requires states to accommodate the religious practices of institutionalized persons. See, for instance, _Holt v. Hobbs_ (2015). ## The “space” to exercise religion freely is good, but are people truly “free” if they don’t use it? Simply safeguarding free exercise by legal means is unlikely to be a person’s or community’s end or purpose. But if the protection of free exercise is necessary to the potential for robust or sincere religious exercise or an authentic search for religion, then the Index analyzes a contributing factor to these more ultimate ends. Moreover, religious pluralism-by many accounts a positive influence on communities and important even when imperfect in American history-is infeasible without the space for free exercise. Statistical studies of religious pluralism (as much as it is indicative of true and robust conscience within a population), sincerity of practice (or no practice, where likewise rooted in conviction), and religiosity among the religious could benefit from controlling for the “space” provided (or not) for any of these by a state’s safeguarding of free exercise. That “space” is the construct this Index measures. ## Why haven’t you included particular court cases addressing infringements on individuals’ religious liberty by the state or a person’s neighbors? What matters is people’s daily experiences, not the letter of the law. It is true that many legal concerns and cases arise claiming mistreatment of religious individuals and communities even in the United States, which recognizes religion as a fundamental liberty. A meaningful index, however, needs to reasonably reflect the thing it is meant to measure, and case counts cannot do so unambiguously. Imagine a state with zero religious liberty cases in a year. This could occur if it is - ideally hospitable to people of different faiths - extremely inhospitable to different faiths (and consequently homogeneous), or - religiously diverse but inhospitable enough that no minority religionist would raise his or her concerns in a court of law. If an observation of zero cases can reflect any or all of these situations in states, case counts cannot be meaningfully aggregated, let alone combined with other valid safeguards. Still, statistical analyses of religious pluralism or legal claims of religious discrimination should be greatly aided by a summary measure like RLS that reflects _de jure_ state laws. ## What about decisions of judges and courts that interpret statutory or constitutional law? How do you account for the variation in case law that is not captured by the letter of the law? Interpretation and enforcement of the law are important for liberty too. However, judicial interpretation is also more difficult to measure objectively, and it is difficult to ensure that one is making the necessary comparisons across all fifty states. What RLS can do and has done since the 2023 edition is ensure that the statutory laws we draw upon are current and valid, that is, that they have not been deemed unconstitutional nor otherwise superseded by a decision of a court. We do this using a process known to legal scholars and practitioners as Shepardizing, which is described in our [methodology](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/methodology/). Even granting that a largely statute-based legal index cannot fully capture the critical role of courts, the letter of the law does matter. It matters to people who base expectations and decisions on those laws before a potential issue arises or reaches a court of law. When a case does come before a court, the existence of a solid, recorded law gives those with sincerely held religious beliefs a justification, even a legal standing, for their religious liberty demands. If states neglect or reject legal safeguards through legislative means, the prospect of judicial decisions in favor of religious liberty are greatly diminished. Moreover, where judges act inconsistently with the law, citizens can appeal as necessary. --- --- title: "Media Kit" url: "https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/media-kit/" lang: "en-US" type: "page" description: "Title The Religious Liberty in the States Media Kit provides logos, social graphics, and ready-to-use messaging for press and partners. It includes high-resolution images and talking points to help share and explain the report. Whether you are writing an article," last_modified: "2026-07-14T13:46:52+00:00" custom_fields: iawp_total_views: 64 --- # Media Kit # Title The Religious Liberty in the States Media Kit provides logos, social graphics, and ready-to-use messaging for press and partners. It includes high-resolution images and talking points to help share and explain the report. Whether you are writing an article, preparing a presentation, or promoting the index online, these resources are designed for accuracy and ease. Please credit the report appropriately when using these materials. ## Complete Media Kit [Religious Liberty in the States 2026 Media Kit (ZIP)](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS+2026+Media+Kit.zip) Contains the RLS press release, contact list, rankings table, figures, images, and logos ## Press Release [Religious Liberty in the States 2026 Press Release (PDF)](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/Release_RLI_2026_Press+Conf_Arkansas_FNL.pdf) ## Images - [RLS 2026 – Rankings Table (PDF)](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/26-01_RLS-rankings-table_one-pager_final.pdf) A one-page, printable PDF of the state rankings and scores - [Rankings Heat Map (PNG)](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/rankings-map_social_final.png) This map provides a visual breakdown of how the states rank - [State Distribution Graph (PNG)](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/distribution-graph-social_final.png) A line graph indicating the distribution of states by their RLS scores - [Cover of the Religious Liberty in the States Report 2026 (PNG)](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/2026-RLS-cover_final_1.png) - [RLS At a Glance (PDF)](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/at-a-glance-page_final.pdf) The first page of the report, listing the top and bottom five states and biggest movers ## Contact List [Religious Liberty in the States 2026 Contact List (PDF)](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/RLS_Contacts-2026.pdf) ## Additional Information - [About Religious Liberty in the States](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/about/) - [About the Center for Religion, Culture & Democracy](https://crcd.net/about/) - [Religious Liberty in the States Report and Dataset](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/downloads/) ## Logos - RLS Full Color Vertical Logo ([PNG](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/Religious_Liberty_Full_Color_Vertical.png) | [EPS](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/Religious_Liberty_Full_Color_Vertical.eps)) - RLS Full Color Horizontal Logo ([PNG](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/Religious_Liberty_Full_Color_Horizontal.png) | [EPS](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/Religious_Liberty_Full_Color_Horizontal.eps)) - Center for Religion, Culture & Democracy (CRCD) Full-Color Logo ([PNG](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/CRCD_Logo_Color.png)) --- --- title: "2022 Dataset" url: "https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/downloads/2022-dataset/" lang: "en-US" type: "page" description: "2022 Dataset Religious Liberty in the States This dataset (.xlsx) contains the data used to construct the index and rankings.Click to download XLSX" last_modified: "2025-07-11T18:52:36+00:00" custom_fields: litespeed_no_cache: 1 litespeed_no_image_lazy: 1 --- # 2022 Dataset [ ![22-RFI-004-RLS-Template_Dataset-Cover2](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/wp-content/media/22-RFI-004-RLS-Template_Dataset-Cover2-1.jpg) 2022 Dataset ## Religious Liberty in the States This dataset (.xlsx) contains the data used to construct the index and rankings.**Click to download XLSX** ](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/Religious_Liberty_in_the_States_Dataset-2022.xlsx) --- --- title: "2022 Report" url: "https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/downloads/2022-report/" lang: "en-US" type: "page" description: "2022 Full Report Religious Liberty in the States The report (PDF) includes an executive summary, overview, tables and rankings, discussion of methodology, FAQ, and all 50 state scorecards.Click to download PDF" last_modified: "2025-07-11T18:51:58+00:00" --- # 2022 Report [ ![RLS-2022-Cover](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/wp-content/media/RLS-2022-Cover-1.jpg) 2022 Full Report ## Religious Liberty in the States The report (PDF) includes an executive summary, overview, tables and rankings, discussion of methodology, FAQ, and all 50 state scorecards.**Click to download PDF** ](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/Religious_Liberty_in_the_States_Report-2022.pdf) --- --- title: "Downloads" url: "https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/downloads/" lang: "en-US" type: "page" description: "Title The Downloads page provides access to the full 2026 Religious Liberty in the States report, including this year's updates, complete rankings, and key visuals. You can also download the full dataset, which includes data from previous years, research notes," last_modified: "2026-07-13T17:02:11+00:00" custom_fields: litespeed_no_cache: 1 litespeed_no_image_lazy: 1 litespeed_no_vpi: 1 iawp_total_views: 962 --- # Downloads # Title The Downloads page provides access to the full 2026 Religious Liberty in the States report, including this year’s updates, complete rankings, and key visuals. You can also download the full dataset, which includes data from previous years, research notes, and legal references for each state. Individual state scorecards are available for quick access to detailed, state-specific results. All files are free to download for researchers, policymakers, and the public. [ ![Screenshot](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/wp-content/media/RLS_2026_Cover.jpg) Report ## Religious Liberty in the States The report (PDF) includes an overview of what’s new this year, complete state rankings, and helpful tables and figures.**Click to download PDF** ](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/Religious_Liberty_in_the_States_Report-2026.pdf) [ ![Screenshot](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/wp-content/media/RLS_2026_Rankings.jpg) Rankings ## 2026 State Rankings This downloadable PDF lists all 50 states ranked by their overall score on a single page for easy reference.**Click to download PDF** ](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/26-01_RLS-rankings-table_one-pager_final.pdf) [ ![RLS_2026_Cover_GS](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/wp-content/media/RLS_2026_Cover_GS.jpg) Dataset ## Religious Liberty in the States This dataset (.xlsx) contains the data used to construct the index and rankings, along with research notes and links to state laws. It also includes data from the previous years of the index.**Click to download XLSX** ](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/Religious_Liberty_in_the_States_Dataset-2026.xlsx) ## Individual State Scorecards Click a state below to download its Religious Liberty in the States scorecard (PDF) --- --- title: "Methodology" url: "https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/methodology/" lang: "en-US" type: "page" description: "Title Because religious liberty matters, so does careful measurement of its component parts and causal factors. Objectivity is critical for meaningful measurement and consistent with the highest standards of research integrity. RLS is further committed to transparency, providing rationale for" last_modified: "2026-07-08T12:40:11+00:00" custom_fields: iawp_total_views: 196 --- # Methodology # Title Because religious liberty matters, so does careful measurement of its component parts and causal factors. Objectivity is critical for meaningful measurement and consistent with the highest standards of research integrity. RLS is further committed to transparency, providing rationale for choices where they have been made. This website also provides free access to everything from the raw data of this project ([safeguard pages](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/safeguards/) link directly to relevant locations in state laws) to the scores that comprise the index. Our [full dataset](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/downloads/) is available for download. In keeping with our commitment to integrity and transparency, we also provide an [errata](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/errata/) page where we note and discuss any corrections to the RLS data, whether past or present. ## RLS’s Notion of Liberty RLS adopts the term “safeguard” to describe state laws that provide a general freedom from artificial barriers that would otherwise reduce one’s capacity for religious exercise. These laws often take the form of exemptions. Even those who think that liberty is a means not an end should recognize that this sort of liberty is an essential precondition for facilitating other goods, including personal, familial, cultural, and spiritual ends.Appendix A of the Religious Liberty in the States [2022 report](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/rls-2022-archive) explains in much greater detail what we mean by “liberty” and how it informs this measurement project. ## Advantages of Written Law Taking together this project’s conception of liberty and its goal of objectivity, RLS constructs an index and state rankings that reflect the reality that states differ in their legal provisions for free exercise.While it is also likely that states differ in other ways that provide more or less space to people of faith, measuring the legal safeguards has a number of advantages over alternative measures (e.g., the attitudes of one’s neighbors, accepted social norms, or religious stigma), providing greater accuracy and practical utility.First, laws are written and publicly recorded and thus manifest two necessary conditions for the transparency and objectivity to which RLS is committed.Second, an index derived from such laws can illuminate practical opportunities for improving the space for free exercise. For example, a low score from an index measuring legal safeguards of religious liberty will point directly to feasible means for improvement. ## Updating Our methodology also includes a step known to legal scholars as Shepardizing. Through a systematic process of reviewing relevant case law, we consider the influence of judicial decisions on all the statutes cited in RLS data to determine whether the statutory law is still “good” law, neither deemed unconstitutional nor otherwise superseded by a court decision. RLS is committed to this updating process because it enhances the credibility of both our source data for researchers and the aggregate scores and resultant rankings we report annually. It also better reflects whether state protections of religious liberty are substantive. ## What States Reveal Rather than predefine a topical scope for religious exercise, RLS considers as candidate items anything that arises in any state and that references religion in making an exclusion or exemption in its law. In this way we allow states to reveal which aspects of American life are religiously relevant rather than using a philosophical, theoretical, or value-oriented definition of what areas of the law might impinge upon free exercise.The [Codes and Scoring document](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/codes-and-scoring/) explains how the dataset for RLS was constructed. The data appendices in [RLS 2022](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/rls-2022-archive) and [2023](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/rls-2023-archive) explain in further detail how elements of state laws were verified, scored, and aggregated for the index. ## From Laws to Data State statutes (and in limited cases constitutional or administrative protections) comprise most of the data for this project.For each piece of data (a law in a state), the RLS team assigns a lettered code that reflects the way in which a state engages (or does not) in that area. Those codes are converted to numerical scores based on whether the code constitutes a safeguard (score = 1) or not (score = 0).The resulting index score-a percentage of all the possible individual safeguard scores that a state has in place-allows us to rank, compare, and evaluate religious liberty in every state.The publicly available data file reports all codes, score, and statutory citations for each item of the data. The [Codes and Scoring](https://religiouslibertyinthestates.com/codes-and-scoring/) page provides detailed explanations of our coding and scoring system. ## An Invitation **We invite interested scholars and data-informed advocates to make the case that religious liberty matters.** RLS index scores can be correlated with other state-level measures so that researchers can enhance the collective understanding of the factors that predict legal protection of religious liberty and its potential consequences (e.g., social stability, economic development, religious pluralism, charitable giving, and religiosity). As an annual project, RLS also reflects changes in states’ laws so that researchers can consider time trends, both across the country as a whole and within states. Advocates can provide information to lawmakers using insights on a state’s relative ranking, the change in the ranking over time, or the safeguards that the state lacks, falling short in its protections. ---