The Napa Legal Institute has released its third annual Faith and Freedom Index, ranking all 50 states and Washington D.C. on how well state laws protect religious organizations and faith-based nonprofits; the report scores states across a Religious Freedom Category and a Regulatory Freedom Category and offers a roadmap for better protections. Leaders from the Institute explained the methodology in a webinar and highlighted winners, laggards, and recent state-level reforms aimed at defending religious exercise and reducing regulatory burdens. Alabama tops the list at 72 percent while Michigan lands at the bottom with 31 percent, and the Index is designed to help states adopt laws that let faith-based groups serve their communities without needless legal obstacles.
The Index was presented by Napa Legal Institute President Mark Rohlena, Senior Counsel and Director of Content Frank DeVito, Board Vice Chairman John Peiffer, and Fr. Tony Pillari in a Monday webinar. They said the report is meant to be practical: it shows where laws help and where they burden nonprofit ministries and charities. The organization stresses both constitutional protections and the day-to-day regulatory framework that can determine whether a ministry thrives or struggles under state rules.
DeVito emphasized the Index’s usefulness for smaller groups when he observed that some entities “struggle with laws that often affect those who don’t have the resources to comply with them.” He also described the Index’s goal to “be as objective” as possible when evaluating statutes and policies. DeVito pointed out that “Some blue states have some good laws on the books,” which can still “offer some level of protection” despite political stereotypes about state law environments.
The Napa Legal Institute separates its analysis into two main categories to capture different pressures faith-based nonprofits face. The “Religious Freedom Category” examines constitutional free exercise protections, state Religious Freedom Restoration Acts, protections for nonprofits that serve the public, employer protections for faith-based organizations, emergency powers affecting worship, and state Blaine Amendments. The “Regulatory Freedom Category” looks at nonprofit corporation law, standards of conduct for directors, charitable registration and audit requirements, corporate income tax exemptions, sales and use tax rules, and property tax treatment.
Alabama has several laws that facilitate the contributions of faith-based nonprofits, including strong constitutional protections for free exercise of religion, a state constitutional amendment requiring government burdens on religious exercise to satisfy strict scrutiny, and an automatic exemption from state corporate income tax for organizations with federal 501(c)(3) status. Additionally, Alabama does not impose audit requirements as a condition of maintaining authorization to fundraise in the state for those same organizations.
The report credits Alabama for laws that reduce friction for donors and operators, while also noting room for improvement. The Index flags Alabama’s Blaine Amendment as “broadly restrictive,” explaining that Blaine Amendments limit or prohibit the use of public funds for religious institutions and remain a legal obstacle in some states. Those mixed findings show the Index is granular: a high overall score can coexist with specific constitutional quirks that deserve reform.
Michigan has some policies that facilitate the contributions of faith-based nonprofits, including an automatic exemption from state corporate income tax for religious organizations that have 501(c)(3) status. Michigan, however, has several laws that are burdensome to faith-based nonprofits operating in the state, such as a broad Blaine Amendment, nondiscrimination laws regarding public accommodations and employment that include no meaningful exemptions for religious organizations, and a lack of a RFRA.
Fr. Tony Pillari described the stakes for schools and religious ministries, saying his Catholic school’s ability to “teach in harmony with natural law” depends on robust state protections. He and others at the webinar stressed that state-level Religious Freedom Restoration Acts can be “very helpful” for faith-based nonprofits when state statutes or policies clash with religious practice. Those state defenses matter because federal protections are sometimes insufficient or subject to differing interpretations at the state level.
Some states have made progress since the last version of the Index was released. For example, Georgia and Wyoming have passed state Religious Freedom Restoration Acts in the last year, providing strong defenses for faith-based nonprofits against laws that conflict with their religious beliefs and practices. Every state that passes a law improving the religious liberty landscape for faith-based nonprofits is a victory for society.
The Index also highlights practical resources the Institute provides, including formation for faith-based attorneys and a national network that connects legal counsel with nonprofits. Through the Good Counselor Project, Napa Legal provides formation to faith-based attorneys, equips them with the skills they need to assist religious organizations, and has created a nationwide network so that faith-based nonprofits and faith-based attorneys can come together and serve each other’s needs. That mix of policy grading and legal support aims to turn a report card into real-world legal help for ministries and charities.
The Napa Legal Institute describes its mission as equipping nonprofits “with the tools and resources they need so they can protect their organizations and achieve their missions.” The Index is framed as a practical guide: states can see specific reforms tied to higher scores, and organizations can identify which jurisdictions are more favorable or more restrictive. As Board Vice Chairman John Peiffer put it, “Every state has the ability to pass better laws to protect religious organizations and help them thrive.”
Editor’s Note: The Schumer Shutdown is here. Rather than put the American people first, Chuck Schumer and the radical Democrats forced a government shutdown for healthcare for illegals. They own this.
