Which court cases besides Oklahoma challenged anti‑Sharia or ALAC‑style laws and what were their rulings?
Executive summary
Several high‑profile legal fights over anti‑Sharia and American Laws for American Courts (ALAC) model laws culminated in a decisive federal appeal in the Oklahoma matter, but reporting and legal summaries show relatively few successful courtroom challenges to ALAC‑style statutes outside that case — many states passed variants, some bills failed in legislatures, and litigation has largely centered on the Oklahoma amendment rather than a cascade of separate federal rulings [1] [2] [3].
1. The Oklahoma test case that set the template and its outcome
The most litigated and consequential test came in Muneer Awad v. Paul Ziriax, the challenge to Oklahoma’s 2010 “Save Our State” constitutional amendment that explicitly barred state courts from considering “Sharia” or “international” law; a federal court enjoined the amendment and the Tenth Circuit affirmed that injunction, finding the measure likely violated the Establishment Clause because it singled out Islam for disfavored treatment [1] [4] [5].
2. What counts as “other” challenges — litigation versus legislative fights
Beyond Oklahoma, much of the activity documented by reporters and advocates was legislative rather than judicial: dozens of states considered ALAC‑style measures, some states passed foreign‑law bans or constitutional amendments, and others defeated or vetoed proposals — for example, Missouri’s measure was vetoed by the governor over potential collateral impacts, and an anti‑Sharia bill failed in Idaho despite repeated reintroduction attempts [6] [2] [3]. Sources show widespread legislative copying of the ALAC model authored by David Yerushalmi, but they do not catalog a string of separate federal court rulings invalidating those state laws comparable to the Oklahoma appellate decision [2] [3].
3. Litigation footprint: why Oklahoma looms so large
Legal commentators and civil‑rights groups frame the movement as having produced few actual “Sharia in our courts” problems and therefore few ripe legal disputes; the ACLU and others successfully focused litigation resources on Oklahoma precisely because courts elsewhere already possess doctrines — like public‑policy exceptions and First Amendment protections — that prevent the wholesale application of foreign religious law, reducing the number of novel cases to litigate [7] [5]. The ACLU’s litigation narrative emphasizes that the Oklahoma amendment was especially vulnerable because it named Islam and international law and lacked any demonstrated actual problem the amendment purported to remedy [4] [7].
4. Alternate view: proponents, authors and legislative momentum
Supporters and authors of ALAC insist the model is religion‑neutral and intended to prevent application of foreign codes that would conflict with American public policy; David Yerushalmi and allied groups argue the model does not single out Islam on paper even as they cite particular cases and anecdotal examples to justify legislative action [2]. Investigative reporting and advocacy groups counter that the template originated as an explicitly anti‑Sharia effort and that using neutral language did not mask the political aim to stigmatize Muslim communities, a motive identified by multiple sources [8] [3].
5. What the sources do not show — gaps in the litigation record
Available reporting compiled here does not identify a broad list of separate federal court cases that struck down ALAC‑style laws beyond the Oklahoma litigation; sources instead document legislative adoption, vetoes, and failed bills in many states but stop short of describing multiple appellate decisions overturning such laws nationwide [2] [3]. Because the published summaries focus on the Oklahoma appeal, and on legislative diffusion and advocacy, definitive claims about other specific court rulings cannot be made from these sources alone; the record in these excerpts shows that Oklahoma remains the principal successful legal challenge documented [1] [4].
6. The legal and political takeaways
Judicial rulings to date — at least as reflected in the material compiled here — point to a single, consequential appellate victory that curtailed an explicitly anti‑Islam constitutional amendment in Oklahoma while the broader campaign played out in statehouses, public debates, and advocacy networks; proponents frame the laws as protective and neutral, while civil‑liberties groups argue they are discriminatory, unnecessary, and constitutionally flawed, and the evidence assembled in these sources underlines that most consequential enforcement and invalidation occurred in the Oklahoma litigation rather than through a cascade of separate court victories [1] [2] [5].