I wrote recently about the ranking of states in the Religious Liberty Index. That post explained why such rankings can be valuable in identifying measures of a state’s performance, highlighting specific policies a state can adopt, and providing some motivation to improve. In that ranking, Utah was number 11.

Another recent ranking puts Utah at the top. This is the Federalism Scorecard created by the Center for Practical Federalism. The Scorecard measures each state’s vulnerability to federal influence.

After the 2024 Scorecard was released, Sutherland Institute created a “federalism audit” that examined how the state was doing on the measured indicators. At that time, Utah was at the top with a raw score of 74.26. The audit looked at each item being measured, “safeguards” of the state’s availability to resist federal overreach, described the relevant Utah law, and made recommendations where Utah did not have a specific protection.

These nine recommendations included greater legislative oversight of state administrative agencies and their interactions with the national government.

Since the audit in January 2025, Utah made progress on three indicators: ensuring the legislature reviews proposed state executive branch regulations, legislative oversight of grants sought from the federal government by state agencies, and the legislature’s ability to decline a particular federal grant. It also made a significant step in adopting laws to require that guidance given by federal agencies to state officials be made transparent to the legislature and the public.

In the 2025 rankings, Utah was number 2. The state moved up one place this year, and its raw score is 86.90, ten points higher than last year and significantly higher than the next state, which has a score of 56.70.

It is heartening that Utah is doing so well, and particularly that its raw score improved so much. More important, though, is the challenge the Scorecard presents: is your state vulnerable to federal pressure? Limiting that vulnerability involves both “offensive” (how states are governed) and “defensive” (how states relate to the national government) measures.

It is not just that states need to be concerned about overreach by the federal government. Sometimes federal largesse is a threat. With enormous federal indebtedness, states would be wise not to rely too heavily on federal support to perform essential functions. Financial pressures have already led Congress to shift greater financial responsibility for safety net programs to the states. That type of pressure is not likely to let up, so states should be prepared to take on more and would be wise not to rely heavily on the assumption that the federal government can step in to foot the bill if the state becomes overwhelmed by financial or logistical demands.

For Utah, this report identifies valuable steps the state could take moving forward. For instance:

• The state could put limits on lobbying by state executive branch agencies.
• The state could allow businesses and individuals who may be affected by state agency rules to seek an injunction in court to prevent the rule from going into effect.
• The state could create greater transparency of federal grants received by the state.

In a school setting, a report card could provide valuable feedback if the criteria are clear and consistently applied. The Federalism Scorecard is a great example of this type of helpful feedback. Its assessment of Utah is encouraging and motivating. The state seems well positioned to continue to independently care for the needs of the state, regardless of the vagaries of federal regulations and funding. Its continued vigilance to maintain its position and improve, though, is a high priority going forward.