{"id":151298,"date":"2026-05-15T15:45:13","date_gmt":"2026-05-15T23:45:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2026\/05\/15\/new-utah-law-lets-students-skip-content-they-dont-believe-in-and-you-thought-teaching-con-law-was-bad-before\/"},"modified":"2026-05-15T15:45:13","modified_gmt":"2026-05-15T23:45:13","slug":"new-utah-law-lets-students-skip-content-they-dont-believe-in-and-you-thought-teaching-con-law-was-bad-before","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2026\/05\/15\/new-utah-law-lets-students-skip-content-they-dont-believe-in-and-you-thought-teaching-con-law-was-bad-before\/","title":{"rendered":"New Utah Law Lets Students Skip Content They Don\u2019t Believe In. And You Thought Teaching Con Law Was Bad Before\u2026"},"content":{"rendered":"

Lawyers and law professors have worn the soles out of \u201cit depends\u201d when answering legal questions, but the shoulder shrug is a legitimate response given the last few years of Constitutional developments. The Court shrugged off stare decisis in a big way with Bruen<\/em><\/a> back in 2022 and the jurists\u2019 internal consistency of their rulings is so suspect that Justice Gorsuch took it upon himself to call most of his co-workers hypocrites<\/a>. Trump v. United States<\/a> made it harder to distinguish the difference between a president and a king<\/a> and Kennedy v. Bremerton<\/a> the difference between church and state. The newest development in Establishment Clause doctrine comes out of Utah \u2014 they just passed a law allowing students to opt out of content if it isn\u2019t in line with their religious beliefs. Heching Report<\/a> has coverage:<\/p>\n

\n

A new state law offers these students a unique protection: If something in a class conflicts with their strongly held religious or personal beliefs, students can ask their professor for an alternative assignment or exam. And as long as their request doesn\u2019t change the fundamental nature of the course, the professor is now required by law to allow the student to opt out.\u00a0
\u2026
Michael J. Petersen, a Republican state representative from Logan, said the idea for the bill came after his daughter was assigned to write a letter to a legislator in support of LGBTQ+ rights as part of a master\u2019s degree program at an out-of-state college. The assignment was in conflict with her beliefs, so she called her dad for help.\u00a0<\/p>\n

He helped her write \u201csomething that was very, very bland.\u201d She moved on \u2014 and he began drafting the legislation.\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

To the degree that the law prevents students from being forced to materially advocate for something that is against their will (i.e., sending a letter of support to a senator), I think the law is fair game. But there is a risk of sloping toward refusing engagement with any unsavory ideas and forcing professors to make students comfortable rather than encouraging them to think critically or, dare I say it, like lawyers. One of the main functions of higher education \u2014 besides the creation of docile bodies ready to meet market demands \u2014 is to expose students to new ideas. And exposure isn\u2019t<\/em> interchangeable with conversion; in college and law school, I encountered points of view I considered anathema, but doing so helped me better understand my own thoughts or why I disagreed with the ones presented.<\/p>\n

But what does this new law mean for law school? Well, it depends. Take the University of Utah\u2019s law school, for example. The school is governed by the Utah Board of Higher Education<\/a> and appears to be bound to the new law. The law requires faculty to make accommodations for courses that are part of the college\u2019s general education requirement; it would be a hard sell for 1L Con Law or Crim Law courses to not fall under that category. What happens if the professor writes a final that requires the student to navigate a hypothetical banning interracial gay marriage? Do they get to say that reading Obergefell v. Hodges <\/em>or Loving v. Virginia<\/a><\/em> went against their religiously held beliefs on marriage and that forcing them to read the cases or parrot those holdings to advocate for a position, even if it never left the classroom, would violate their faith? Or what if there\u2019s some novel believer who genuinely holds that the Dormant Commerce Clause is sinful, would a Con Law professor be required to give them an exam that doesn\u2019t require acknowledging it exists?<\/p>\n

Maybe the professors should consult with religious leaders before they assign readings and exams, just to make sure that things run as smoothly as possible. Wouldn\u2019t want to make any students uncomfortable. <\/p>\n

A New Law In Utah Allows Students To Opt Out Of Coursework That Conflicts With Their Beliefs<\/a> [Heching Report]<\/p>\n

\n
\"\"
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Chris Williams became a social media manager and assistant editor for Above the Law in June 2021. Prior to joining the staff, he moonlighted as a minor Memelord\u2122 in the Facebook group\u00a0Law School Memes for Edgy T14s . \u00a0He endured Missouri long enough to graduate from Washington University in St. Louis School of Law. He is a former boat builder who is learning to swim and is interested in rhetoric, Spinozists and humor. Getting back in to cycling wouldn\u2019t hurt either. You can reach him by email at christopherrashadwilliams@gmail.com<\/a> and by Tweet\/Bluesky at\u00a0@WritesForRent<\/a>.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The post New Utah Law Lets Students Skip Content They Don\u2019t Believe In. And You Thought Teaching Con Law Was Bad Before\u2026<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Lawyers and law professors have worn the soles out of \u201cit depends\u201d when answering legal questions, but the shoulder shrug is a legitimate response given the last few years of Constitutional developments. The Court shrugged off stare decisis in a big way with Bruen<\/em><\/a> back in 2022 and the jurists\u2019 internal consistency of their rulings is so suspect that Justice Gorsuch took it upon himself to call most of his co-workers hypocrites<\/a>. Trump v. United States<\/a> made it harder to distinguish the difference between a president and a king<\/a> and Kennedy v. Bremerton<\/a> the difference between church and state. The newest development in Establishment Clause doctrine comes out of Utah \u2014 they just passed a law allowing students to opt out of content if it isn\u2019t in line with their religious beliefs. Heching Report<\/a> has coverage:<\/p>\n

\n

A new state law offers these students a unique protection: If something in a class conflicts with their strongly held religious or personal beliefs, students can ask their professor for an alternative assignment or exam. And as long as their request doesn\u2019t change the fundamental nature of the course, the professor is now required by law to allow the student to opt out.\u00a0
\u2026
Michael J. Petersen, a Republican state representative from Logan, said the idea for the bill came after his daughter was assigned to write a letter to a legislator in support of LGBTQ+ rights as part of a master\u2019s degree program at an out-of-state college. The assignment was in conflict with her beliefs, so she called her dad for help.\u00a0<\/p>\n

He helped her write \u201csomething that was very, very bland.\u201d She moved on \u2014 and he began drafting the legislation.\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

To the degree that the law prevents students from being forced to materially advocate for something that is against their will (i.e., sending a letter of support to a senator), I think the law is fair game. But there is a risk of sloping toward refusing engagement with any unsavory ideas and forcing professors to make students comfortable rather than encouraging them to think critically or, dare I say it, like lawyers. One of the main functions of higher education \u2014 besides the creation of docile bodies ready to meet market demands \u2014 is to expose students to new ideas. And exposure isn\u2019t<\/em> interchangeable with conversion; in college and law school, I encountered points of view I considered anathema, but doing so helped me better understand my own thoughts or why I disagreed with the ones presented.<\/p>\n

But what does this new law mean for law school? Well, it depends. Take the University of Utah\u2019s law school, for example. The school is governed by the Utah Board of Higher Education<\/a> and appears to be bound to the new law. The law requires faculty to make accommodations for courses that are part of the college\u2019s general education requirement; it would be a hard sell for 1L Con Law or Crim Law courses to not fall under that category. What happens if the professor writes a final that requires the student to navigate a hypothetical banning interracial gay marriage? Do they get to say that reading Obergefell v. Hodges <\/em>or Loving v. Virginia<\/a><\/em> went against their religiously held beliefs on marriage and that forcing them to read the cases or parrot those holdings to advocate for a position, even if it never left the classroom, would violate their faith? Or what if there\u2019s some novel believer who genuinely holds that the Dormant Commerce Clause is sinful, would a Con Law professor be required to give them an exam that doesn\u2019t require acknowledging it exists?<\/p>\n

Maybe the professors should consult with religious leaders before they assign readings and exams, just to make sure that things run as smoothly as possible. Wouldn\u2019t want to make any students uncomfortable. <\/p>\n

A New Law In Utah Allows Students To Opt Out Of Coursework That Conflicts With Their Beliefs<\/a> [Heching Report]<\/p>\n

\n
\"\"
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Chris Williams became a social media manager and assistant editor for Above the Law in June 2021. Prior to joining the staff, he moonlighted as a minor Memelord\u2122 in the Facebook group\u00a0Law School Memes for Edgy T14s . \u00a0He endured Missouri long enough to graduate from Washington University in St. Louis School of Law. He is a former boat builder who is learning to swim and is interested in rhetoric, Spinozists and humor. Getting back in to cycling wouldn\u2019t hurt either. You can reach him by email at christopherrashadwilliams@gmail.com<\/a> and by Tweet\/Bluesky at\u00a0@WritesForRent<\/a>.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The post New Utah Law Lets Students Skip Content They Don\u2019t Believe In. And You Thought Teaching Con Law Was Bad Before\u2026<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Lawyers and law professors have worn the soles out of \u201cit depends\u201d when answering legal questions, but the shoulder shrug is a legitimate response given the last few years of Constitutional developments. The Court shrugged off stare decisis in a big way with Bruen back in 2022 and the jurists\u2019 internal consistency of their rulings […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":151299,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-151298","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-above_the_law"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/xira.com\/p\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Chris-Williams-2025-JXunLz.jpg?fit=512%2C288&ssl=1","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/151298","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=151298"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/151298\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/151299"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=151298"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=151298"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=151298"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}