What Is Freedom of Conscience, and Why Does It Matter?

What is “conscience”? It’s a word we’re all familiar with—a clear conscience, a guilty conscience—even if we can’t pinpoint an exact definition.

The concept pops up in all kinds of places: in Saturday morning cartoons where good guys consult an angel on their right shoulder (conscience) and a devil on their left shoulder (temptation) before making a decision; in literary masterpieces like Crime and Punishment, where the main character suffers from overwhelming guilt after committing a crime; and in popular movies like Star Wars where Darth Vader chooses to do one final good act after an entire adulthood of evil.

But none of these examples capture the full concept of conscience. As Americans, we should consider the true meaning of “conscience.” We should also recognize the importance—and privilege—of having the freedom of conscience. America was founded on this freedom. And it’s worth preserving today.

What is freedom of conscience?

Conscience is our God-given ability to discern right from wrong, good from evil. But it’s more than that. Knowing right from wrong wouldn’t do much good if we didn’t (or couldn’t) act on what’s right. So conscience also includes the ability to apply laws, rules, and intuitions in the right way—in other words, to act on what we believe. That freedom to both believe and act is referred to as the freedom of conscience.

Where is freedom of conscience found in the Constitution?

America’s Founders understood the gravity of protecting the freedom of conscience.

James Madison called conscience “the most sacred of all property.” Thomas Jefferson said that no “provision in our constitution ought to be dearer to man, than that which protects the rights of conscience against” the government. And during the debate over what would become the First Amendment, many lawmakers proposed protecting the rights of conscience.

This understanding shaped the First Amendment. Although the amendment doesn’t explicitly mention “conscience,” it protects its animating features: religious freedom and free speech. The First Amendment says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.”

Why is freedom of conscience important?

These 26 words protect the freedom of conscience—the freedom to believe without coercion and to speak and act consistently with those beliefs.

That freedom begins internally: The government cannot force us to act contrary to our beliefs, believe what we otherwise wouldn’t, or say things to which we object. So we have the freedom to think, reason, speak, stay silent about, and hold certain beliefs without fearing government punishment. That protects our private conscience.

But our internal beliefs often move us to act publicly. So the First Amendment also protects our public witness. We can put our faith into action by serving others. We can try to persuade others of our views by publicly expressing them. And we can join communities of people—like churches, nonprofits, and other associations—that share our beliefs.

The First Amendment also protects the freedom to act in several ways. Religious freedom ensures a private sphere within which religious bodies may govern themselves and instruct their congregants according to their own beliefs. That freedom preserves the integrity of those beliefs for future generations.

And the freedom of speech recognizes that voices are often louder when expressed together. So we can join with like-minded people to amplify the messages and values we want to promote.

It may be easy to take these freedoms for granted. But not every country has them. Consider France, a country that generally discourages acts and symbols of faith in the public sphere. There, for example, Muslim girls cannot wear religious head coverings in school under a broader “conspicuous religious symbols” ban, but other girls can wear head scarves for fashion. In France, that’s laïcité. In America, that’s religious discrimination.

The freedom to act on our beliefs is important because community standards—or lack thereof—reflect individuals’ conscience. The more we train our conscience to do what is right, the better off we will be. But we lose our ability to discern right from wrong the more we consistently ignore our conscience.

The freedom of conscience has also benefited America’s common good. Because of this freedom, religious organizations have founded and currently operate countless hospitals, homeless shelters, adoption agencies, community centers, and other public services. Pastors have condemned social ills like racism and violence. And religious people are more likely to volunteer their time and contribute their money to all sorts of charitable causes (religious and secular alike).

What are some court cases dealing with freedom of conscience?

The freedom of conscience is worth preserving. Several court cases seek to do (and have done) just that. Consider three contexts:

1. The freedom of artists to speak according to their beliefs.
2. The freedom of medical providers to decline to provide medical procedures that violate their conscience.
3. The freedom of faith-based public-service ministries to operate in line with their religious purpose.

Freedom of conscience for artists

For almost eighty years, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that compelling someone to express a message they disagree with is unconstitutional. Even so, artists are still being threatened today for declining to convey ideas that violate their beliefs.

For example, Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop has been targeted three times for declining to create custom cakes that promote ideas about human sexuality that he doesn’t believe. Jack’s first case ended in a major victory at the U.S. Supreme Court. More recently, Jack won another victory when the Colorado Supreme Court dismissed a third lawsuit brought against him.

ADF also represented graphic artist and website designer Lorie Smith at the Supreme Court in 303 Creative v. Elenis. Lorie runs 303 Creative, a website design studio. She creates beautiful, original digital designs to promote messages she’s passionate about and wanted to expand to include custom websites that celebrate marriages between one man and one woman.

But Lorie lives in Colorado. And Colorado was trying to misuse one of its laws to force her to create websites promoting messages that contradict her beliefs about marriage. Unwilling to violate the law or her conscience, Lorie challenged the law to protect the cherished freedom to speak consistently with her religious views on marriage.

In June 2023, the Supreme Court ruled that Colorado could not use its law to coerce Lorie to express a message that violated her beliefs. The Court said that the First Amendment protects Lorie’s freedom to decide which messages she wants to express, and that includes the freedom to design wedding websites consistent with her religious beliefs about marriage. In his majority opinion, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote that the freedom “to think and speak is among our inalienable human rights.”

Elsewhere across the country, artists as diverse as florists and custom print shops have been forced to choose between their faith and their craft, just as Colorado tried to force Lorie to do. But fortunately, the First Amendment makes that choice a false dichotomy.

Following the First Amendment, courts have protected the freedoms of filmmakers, calligraphers, and a photographer to create artwork proclaiming their views on marriage. Another court likewise ensured that a Christian philosophy professor could talk about gender identity consistent with his belief about the immutability of sex. Lorie’s victory reaffirms that the Supreme Court still believes in the importance of a free conscience. That’s how it should be. Every American has the right to speak freely. That’s why Lorie found support from a diverse group of artists—from a world-renowned graphic designer to a Christian tattoo artist, a Muslim wedding photographer, and a cake artist who hold different views about marriage.

Freedom of conscience for health-care professionals

Beyond speech, the freedom of conscience is imperative in the medical field. Since ancient times, physicians have sworn to “do no harm” to their patients. Fast forward to present day, and professional medical ethics acknowledge the rights of professionals to decline to provide medical treatment that violates their conscience.

The justification echoes the First Amendment—to preserve the personal integrity of the medical provider and the overall integrity of the medical profession. But not everyone sees it that way.

Consider Cathy Cenzon-DeCarlo, a Catholic nurse at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City. Cathy told the hospital during her job interview that her faith wouldn’t allow her to assist with abortions, and the hospital assured her she’d never have to. Years later, supervisors ordered her to assist in one anyway, threatening her job and nursing license if she refused. Cathy sued the hospital and filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Mount Sinai later revised its policy to protect the conscience rights of its medical staff, ensuring no nurse there would be forced into the same position again.

Counselors can face similar pressure. In Chiles v. Salazar, Colorado counselor Kaley Chiles challenged a state law that barred her from having voluntary counseling conversations with clients about regaining comfort with their biological sex, while allowing counselors to steer clients toward a state-approved outcome of rejecting their sex. On March 31, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in Kaley’s favor, holding that counseling conversations are speech and that Colorado’s viewpoint discrimination is inconsistent with First Amendment principles. Colorado later amended its law to impose similar restrictions on counselors’ speech. Kaley’s case is ongoing.

Assisted suicide raises the same conscience concerns for medical professionals asked to help end a patient’s life rather than preserve it. ADF has represented objecting doctors and medical associations in several states, including a successful challenge to a California law that required healthcare professionals to participate in assisted suicide. California settled the case in 2023, agreeing it would no longer force objecting professionals to take part.

In Christian Healthcare Centers v. Nessel, for example, ADF represents a Michigan faith-based medical nonprofit organization that provides high-quality health care to all and offers substantially reduced prices for patients with lower incomes. But a Michigan law required Christian Healthcare to participate in so-called gender transition efforts by prescribing cross-sex hormones for that intended purpose. Doing so violates the ministry’s religious beliefs and undermines its ability to provide safe health care to its community. So the ministry challenged the law to safeguard its freedom to operate consistent with its beliefs.

A similar situation developed in Colorado. There, Colorado’s Supreme Court interpreted a state anti-discrimination law to require healthcare professionals to prescribe cross-sex hormones or perform surgeries for a so-called gender transition procedure if they offer hormones and surgeries for other reasons. The Christian Medical & Dental Association (CMDA) and a medical clinic are challenging that law because it forces healthcare professionals to participate in these procedures even when doing so violates religious, ethical, and medical judgment. Forcing doctors to perform these unproven procedures against their faith is unconstitutional.

Freedom of conscience for faith-based ministries

The freedom of conscience allows faith-based ministries to provide other public services to care for the most vulnerable among us. For example, ADF has twice defended Downtown Hope Center, a Christian nonprofit organization in Anchorage, Alaska. The Hope Center offers meals, job training, and clothing for homeless men and women and serves as an overnight shelter for women—many of whom are trying to escape from abusive situations and even from sex trafficking.

And ADF represented New Hope Family Services in New York. For over sixty years, New Hope has helped to place hundreds of children into loving adoptive homes throughout the state. It does so because of its religious conviction that Christians are called to look after the needy—especially children. Two ADF lawsuits resulted in courts protecting New Hope’s ability to continue to care for these children and their families according to its religious beliefs.    

These ministries provide critical services to their communities. And they do so because of their religious beliefs. This is a common feature of American history made possible by the freedom of conscience. In that way, protecting the ability of these ministries to live out their faith ensures that other religious organizations can do the same while contributing to the common good.

Protecting freedom of conscience benefits everyone

By now, we’ve answered the original question—what is conscience? And we’ve answered another— why is freedom of conscience worth preserving?

In the end, this freedom recognizes the inherent dignity of each person as created in God’s image and endowed with the God-given capacity to make moral judgments. We all benefit from that freedom.