The court was unconvinced by Kneeland's claims. It ruled that regardless of his beliefs, he had libeled God's name with malicious intent, rendering Kneeland's first point moot. As for the second, the court examined other states' colonial charters and pointed out that they too had reconciled blasphemy laws with guarantees of religious freedom, and that the law "was passed very soon after the adoption of the constitution, and no doubt, many members of the convention which framed the constitution, were members of the legislature which passed this law."
The court found Kneeland's claims to be unfounded, ruling that his malicious intent to insult God constituted libel, making his first point unnecessary. The court also analyzed other states' colonial charters and noted that they had reconciled blasphemy laws with guarantees of religious freedom, suggesting that the law was enacted soon after the constitution's adoption.