Torcaso v. Watkins
The Supreme Court struck down Maryland's requirement that public officeholders declare a belief in God, ruling that the state constitution's religious test violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
The decision means no state or the federal government can condition public office on professing any religious belief, protecting nonbelievers and adherents of non-theistic faiths from being excluded from government service.
How it got here: A Maryland trial court rejected Torcaso's constitutional claims and Maryland's highest court affirmed; he appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Case in Depth
What happened
Roy Torcaso was appointed by Maryland's governor to serve as a notary public, but the state refused to issue his commission because he would not declare a belief in the existence of God, as required by the Maryland Constitution's religious test provision. Torcaso sued to force the state to issue his commission, arguing the requirement violated his federal constitutional rights.
The question before the Court
Could Maryland require a notary public to declare a belief in God before letting him take office?
The Court's answer
No — the Court ruled that Maryland could not refuse to commission Torcaso simply because he would not declare a belief in God. The First Amendment's protections against government establishment of religion, applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, mean government cannot force anyone to profess or disavow any religious belief as a condition of holding public office.
The Court explained that this rule protects not just people who reject religion but also people whose religions do not include a belief in a god, such as Buddhism or Secular Humanism. Because Maryland's test favored believers in God over everyone else, it unconstitutionally invaded Torcaso's freedom of belief, and the state could not enforce it against him.
Curious how the Court got there? See the step-by-step legal reasoning →
Why it matters
People who do not believe in God, or who follow religions without a belief in a deity, can now hold public office in every state without being forced to make a religious declaration. The ruling reinforces that government cannot use religious tests, oaths, or declarations as a condition of employment or public service.
What changes now
The Supreme Court reversed the Maryland Court of Appeals and sent the case back for further proceedings consistent with its ruling, meaning Maryland could no longer deny Torcaso his notary commission because he would not declare belief in God. This is a final merits decision resolving the federal constitutional question, though the Court did not decide a separate argument based on the Constitution's Article VI religious test ban since it resolved the case on First and Fourteenth Amendment grounds.
What this does not decide
The Court expressly declined to decide whether Article VI's ban on religious tests for federal office also applies directly to state offices, since it resolved the case on First and Fourteenth Amendment grounds instead. It also did not rule on Torcaso's separate claim that the requirement violated the Maryland Constitution.
Concurrences and dissents
How the Justices voted
Majority (1). Justice Black (author).
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The Court began from its established interpretation of the First Amendment's establishment clause — the rule barring government from setting up or favoring a religion — which it had explained in Everson v. Board of Education means government cannot pass laws that aid one religion, aid all religions, or force anyone to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.
- The Court noted that this interpretation had been reaffirmed rather than narrowed in later cases, including Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education, and that Zorach v. Clauson had expressly said it was following McCollum rather than retreating from it.
- Applying these principles, the Court explained that Maryland's religious test placed the power of the state behind one category of believers — those willing to declare belief in God — over everyone else, including people who hold no religious belief and adherents of religions that do not include belief in a god.
- The Court rejected Maryland's argument that no violation occurred because Torcaso was not compelled to hold public office at all, holding that the voluntary nature of seeking office cannot excuse the state from imposing a constitutionally forbidden qualification, relying on its earlier ruling in Wieman v. Updegraff.
- The Court concluded that a state cannot constitutionally aid religions based on belief in God as against religions or beliefs that reject or lack such a concept, so Maryland's declaration requirement unconstitutionally invaded Torcaso's freedom of belief and religion.
Doctrinal impact
Cases affected by this decision
Reaffirms Everson v. Board of Education (330 U. S. 1)
The Court relied on Everson's rule that government cannot force anyone to profess a religious belief.
Reaffirms Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education (333 U. S. 203)
The Court said McCollum strongly reaffirmed Everson's broad view of the First Amendment.
Distinguishes Zorach v. Clauson (343 U. S. 306)
The Court said Zorach did not weaken Everson and did not permit religious tests for office.
Reaffirms Wieman v. Updegraff (344 U. S. 183)
The Court used Wieman's rule that no one need be compelled to seek a job to challenge unconstitutional conditions on it.