What civil or criminal cases tested state bans on sharia law and what were the outcomes?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Federal and state litigation over so‑called “bans on Sharia” has centered less on criminal prosecutions and more on constitutional challenges to statutes and ballot amendments; the most prominent test was Muneer Awad v. Ziriax, where federal courts blocked Oklahoma’s 2010 amendment as likely unconstitutional for singling out Islam, and appellate courts affirmed those injunctions, while scholarly reviews find that the handful of cases cited as “Sharia” intrusions into U.S. courts were rarely persuasive and often reversed on appeal [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. The Oklahoma test case — Muneer Awad and the “Save Our State” amendment
The defining civil challenge came when Oklahoma’s State Question 755 (the “Save Our State” amendment), which explicitly prohibited state courts from considering “Sharia law” or international law, was enacted by voters but then enjoined in federal court after plaintiffs argued it singled out Islam and violated the Establishment Clause; federal appellate courts unanimously upheld that blocking order, finding sponsors could not show any concrete problem the amendment sought to solve and that the law improperly discriminated against Islam [1] [2] [5].
2. How courts framed the constitutional problem
Courts confronting these bans repeatedly treated them as religious‑discrimination claims under the First Amendment, emphasizing that prohibiting judicial consideration of “Sharia” targeted a religion rather than addressing neutral legal concerns, and therefore raised Establishment and Equal Protection issues; the ACLU framed the appeals court ruling as a repudiation of discriminatory and unnecessary measures that would undermine courts’ ability to honor international commitments [1] [2].
3. Other state enactments and political outcomes versus litigation results
By the mid‑2010s multiple states considered or adopted foreign‑law bans in various forms — some explicitly citing Sharia, others using broader “foreign law” language — and a few ballot measures or statutes passed while governors vetoed others for practical reasons such as impacts on international adoption; Alabama’s 2014 constitutional amendment banning Sharia was approved by voters, but the record shows many of these enactments faced immediate legal scrutiny and political pushback [6].
4. The empirical claim behind the bans — courts found few real‑world examples
Judicial and investigative accounts repeatedly note that proponents of bans could point to very few, if any, clear instances where U.S. courts applied Sharia to produce unlawful outcomes, and where decisions did involve foreign or religious law those rulings were often reversed on appeal or explained under existing doctrines like public‑policy limits on recognition of foreign judgments — a pattern that undercut the stated necessity of sweeping bans [5] [3] [4].
5. Scholarly and advocacy debates: public safety, neutrality, and hidden agendas
Legal scholars and watchdogs diverge: civil‑rights groups argue bans are discriminatory and unnecessary because existing doctrines let courts refuse religious arbitration outcomes that violate public policy, while anti‑Sharia networks and sympathetic legal advocates portray bans as protective measures against an alleged encroachment of religious law — a debate that research shows is driven as much by political and cultural agendas as by concrete jurisprudential need [4] [3] [7].
6. Bottom line — what the tested cases produced
Where state bans were directly litigated in federal courts, plaintiffs succeeded in enjoining or overturning measures that explicitly targeted Sharia on constitutional grounds, with appellate courts affirming that singling out Islam in a judicial‑process restriction likely violated the Establishment Clause; elsewhere, states adopted varied statutory language, but the central trend in tested cases was judicial invalidation or close scrutiny rather than wholesale acceptance of anti‑Sharia bans [1] [2] [3].