Depending on how it is measured, Utah is at the top of, or very near the top of, the list of the most religious states. If measured by the number of residents who say they are members of a church, it is number one. If measured by the percentage of the adult population describing themselves as “highly religious,” it’s number six.
In the recently concluded session of Utah’s legislature, three bills aimed at protecting religious freedom were approved. Why would the leaders of a highly religious community need religious freedom protections? One likely reason is that the importance of religion to the state’s people makes them more sensitive to the importance of such protections.
The 2026 bills address a variety of scenarios.
H.B. 204 Higher Education Student Belief Accommodation prohibits public university classes from requiring students to take a public position at odds with the student’s conscience or religious beliefs. It also provides a process for students to seek accommodations when they are asked to do something for a class assignment (in a required class) that would require them to violate their beliefs.
S.B. 174 Exercise of Religious Beliefs and Conscience Amendments provides protections to medical professionals so that they cannot be punished for declining to participate in specific medical procedures at odds with their religious beliefs or conscience, such as participating in an abortion.
S.B. 268 Religious Curriculum in Schools clarifies that public school teachers are free to teach the facts of historical contributions of religious organizations and people of faith. It also includes specific examples of the types of contributions that should be included.
Although they address different situations, each of these bills has something in common—they all overlap with federal protections.
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly held that governments cannot compel citizens to endorse messages they do not agree with. Since the 1970s, Congress has repeatedly protected the ability of medical professionals to decline to participate in performing abortions. Since at least 2003, the U.S. Department of Education has issued guidance that public schools may teach about the historical contributions of religion.
The application of these federal protections, however, has changed over time, shifting with the priorities of different presidential administrations. For instance, for many years, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services rarely enforced laws protecting the conscience rights of healthcare professionals whose employers wanted to force them to participate in abortions. The current administration has made enforcement a priority.
All of this means that federal protections for people of faith and religious organizations can change in the future in parallel with political changes. Thus, ensuring that these protections are given specific and robust protection in the Utah Code provides essential stability to religious people and the corresponding assurance that their rights will not be dependent on varying political considerations at the national level.
In addition to this critical consideration, the Utah bills are more robust than the corresponding federal protections, which makes them particularly helpful to people of faith.
Taking these two considerations together, the recent bills and similar ones approved in prior sessions provide a powerful benefit to people of faith and religious organizations that might not be immediately apparent. When we think about religious freedom, we typically think of constitutional protections. These are very important, but getting one’s rights vindicated in court involves more than just establishing that the First Amendment protects the exercise of a religious practice.
In practice, convincing a court to vindicate rights is time-consuming and can be expensive. This reality creates an imposing hurdle for minority religious groups and individual believers.
Clear statutory protections can really help in these circumstances. These laws incentivize governments and others to avoid conflicts altogether by clarifying how those conflicts can be avoided. They also allow courts to make a decision based on specific rules rather than having to establish that broadly-worded constitutional provisions apply.
The value of recent Utah statutory protections will likely be increasingly evident as time goes on. Political shifts in the future will demonstrate the wisdom of clear protections at the state level. Recent cultural changes, like the decrease in the proportion of the population affiliated with churches, mean that it may not always be apparent to policymakers that religious protections are important. Acting now will be seen in the future as a wise and timely intervention.
