Tolerance has been studied and critiqued extensively in moral and political philosophy. By contrast, we know relatively little about the salience of tolerance to law. In this article, I aim to fill that gap in our knowledge by making a conceptual case for legal tolerance in constitutional democracies.More specifically, I aim to make a pragmatic case for legal tolerance. The article's core arguments are that (a) lawmakers often engage in legal tolerance of contested beliefs, opinions and practices, and (b) they tend to do so for pragmatic reasons. In building the pragmatic case for legal tolerance, I discuss legal responses in a wide array of jurisdictions and to a broad range of contested moral issues. I also unpack the implications of legal tolerance by analyzing its (in)stability and its relationship to state communicative power. I conclude the article by indicating some potential limits of pragmatic legal tolerance.