In Torcaso v. Watkins, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Roy R. Torcaso, who was denied a commission to serve as a notary public by Maryland Secretary of State Thomas B. Finan due to his refusal to declare belief in God as required by the state's constitution. The court unanimously held that this requirement violated Article VI of the U.S Constitution which states "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." Furthermore, it also infringed upon Torcaso's First Amendment rights concerning freedom of religion and speech since he identified himself an atheist. Therefore, such laws mandating declaration of belief were deemed unconstitutional for infringing on individual liberties regarding personal beliefs and faiths.

In the dissenting opinion for Torcaso v. Watkins, Justice Stewart argued that the case should not have been heard by the Supreme Court because it was a matter of state law rather than federal constitutional law. He contended that Maryland's requirement for public officials to declare belief in God did not violate any provision of the U.S Constitution as interpreted by previous court decisions. According to him, this issue fell under states' rights and each state had its own right to establish requirements for holding public office within its jurisdiction. Therefore, he believed that Maryland’s religious test did not infringe upon an individual’s First Amendment rights since it only applied to those seeking public office and didn't restrict private citizens from practicing their religion freely or expressing disbelief in God.