Some states are more proactive than others in protecting religious freedom, a new report from First Liberty Institute’s Center for Religion, Culture and Democracy found.
Florida ranked first in the report’s 2025 edition, which is up from sixth place in 2022. Montana and Illinois followed in second and third place, respectively, with Utah landed at number nine. West Virginia, meanwhile, came in last among all 50 states.
The report focuses on religious liberty protections that go beyond what’s already required under federal law, focusing instead on state-level protection that are optional and discretionary.
Over time, the report’s criteria have expanded. This year’s analysis assessed 47 legal provisions grouped into 20 broader categories or “safeguards,” ranging from absentee voting accommodations and immunization exemptions to religious conscience protections in healthcare and anti-discrimination laws in finance and insurance.
Some of the new criteria this year include medical conscience protections that let medical workers opt out of disposing of abortion remains, participating in euthanasia and laws that prevent religious discrimination by insurance companies and financial services. Also added were protections against religious discrimination by financial institutions and insurance providers, parental opt-out rights from sex education and protections allowing student athletes to wear religious attire.
Several states made significant improvements when it comes to religious liberty. For instance, Idaho rose seven points, and Arizona and Tennessee rose by six and five points respectively since the previous edition. Florida’s rise to the top came with a 16% improvement in its overall score.
So why are some states doing a better job than others at protecting religious liberty?
Over the past 15 years, religious liberty has increasingly become associated with conservative politics, according to Mark Hall, a professor in Regent University and one of the report’s authors. “That stereotype, which we might make and which I don’t really like — there actually is some validity to it,” he told the Deseret News.
Historically, religious liberty enjoyed bipartisan support. But in recent years, red states have taken the lead in adopting new protections, while some blue states have rolled theirs back.
“Indeed, in the twentieth century Democrats and Republicans were able to come together to protect the first freedom,” the report stated. For example, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) passed by Congress in 1993 “without a recorded dissenting vote in the House and by a vote of 93–3 in the Senate." The report calls leaders to action:“We urge legislators in all states to better protect religious liberty.”
Why are some states better?
Speaking at a press conference at New College in Sarasota, Florida, Florida’s governor Ron DeSantis pointed to Florida’s parents rights laws, physicians’ freedom of speech and their ability to “conduct themselves in a way that’s consistent with their religious beliefs” as recent steps towards more expanded religious freedom laws. “If you go back to the founding of our country, religious liberty was basically the first freedom that the founding fathers sought to protect, and of course religious freedom was part of the reason people even settled in the American colonies to begin with,” DeSantis said. “It’s something central to the American experiment, it’s central to our way of life. But it is something that has really been under assault in recent years.”
It’s predominantly the red states, according to the report, that have most improved their religious liberty protections since 2022, the report’s first year: for example, Montana improved its protections by over 40% since 2022, South Carolina by 29%, and Florida by over 16%.
Some historically progressive states such as Illinois still score highly due to laws passed in the mid-20th century, when bipartisan support for religious liberty was stronger. Back in the 20th century, Republicans were willing to come together with more conservative Democrats to pass protections they deemed necessary, according to Hall. “Virtually every protection that Illinois has, was passed between 1935 and 1998 and it was at a time when the state was far more diverse,” Hall said. This year, Illinois was ranked third in the report.
Hall contrasted the moderately conservative Illinois with Colorado, which was once a “bastion of political conservatism.” Although between 1952 and 2004, Colorado mostly voted Republican in presidential elections, the state legislature failed to pass religious liberty protections during this time. This eventually resulted in a low current ranking — 34th on the list. But even if conservative states are currently more active in passing protections, religious liberty shouldn’t be a partisan issue, Hall emphasized.
In red states that score poorly, such as West Virginia (50th) or North Carolina (44th), the lack of urgency may stem from an assumption that religious liberty is already culturally respected.
But Hall argues that friendly cultural norms are not a substitute for codified legal protections.
The religious liberty rankings also work as a tool for advocacy to advise lawmakers on how to improve their state’s legal safeguards like accommodating religious holidays in school districts for Orthodox Jews ad Muslims. “That’s the law we would think most progressive legislators could get behind even in incredibly progressive states,” Hall said.
How well is Utah doing?
Utah earned a score of 60%, ranking ninth overall. But according to Hall, the state could still improve significantly.
“There is one simple thing that Utah lacks,” Hall said. In the health care category, Hall points to gaps in Utah’s medical conscience protections as a missed opportunity for the state in defending religious liberty. While the state currently protects providers who object to participating in abortions, it lacks broader safeguards for objections to sterilization, contraception, or euthanasia.
He suggests that Utah could follow South Carolina’s lead by adopting a general conscience clause covering any procedure that conflicts with a provider’s religious or moral beliefs. “That would gain Utah a lot of points,” Hall said.
He also recommended new laws that would prevent banks or insurance companies from denying services to religious individuals or organizations. This protection, already added in other states, would improve Utah’s standing.
Earlier this year, Utah took a major step forward by passing its own version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Sponsored by Sen. Todd Weiler (R‑Woods Cross) and Rep. Jordan Teuscher (R‑South Jordan), the bill prohibits state or local governments from substantially burdening a person’s religious exercise unless doing so is the least restrictive means to achieve a compelling government interest. The legislation, signed in February 2024, was the product of a rare bipartisan coalition that included Muslim, evangelical, and Latter-day Saint groups, as well as the ACLU.
Rankings are evolving targets
Because each year, the report adds additional criteria, it may mean some state’s score declines even if no protections are repealed. For example, states like Mississippi, Kansas, and Pennsylvania dropped in the rankings in 2024, not because of legal rollbacks, but because they lacked the new safeguards that were added to the list.
Occasionally, states do reverse existing protections. Washington state, for example, repealed its clergy-penitent privilege law, which protected confidential religious confessions from mandatory reporting rules. That law was recently struck down by a federal judge.
Overall, the evolving criteria are designed as a living policy tool, Hall said, which helps lawmakers ask: “Where are we falling short? What more can we do to ensure freedom of conscience for all?”
“I’m hoping that legislators who already care about religious liberty will look at our report and say, ‘Oh my goodness — our state doesn’t have this. Why is that the case?’”
Comments