How have courts ruled when state laws or constitutional amendments targeted sharia or foreign law post-2020?
Executive summary
Since 2020, federal and state courts have continued a pattern of skepticism toward laws and amendments aimed specifically at “Sharia” or broadly banning foreign or religious law, frequently finding such measures unnecessary or unconstitutional and warning that the purported threat motivating them is largely hypothetical [1] [2]. Legal observers and bar associations have argued these bans are redundant given existing conflict-of-law rules and raise constitutional problems under the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses, while advocacy groups and model-law authors continue to drive new proposals that courts then scrutinize [3] [4] [2].
1. Judicial repudiation of the “Sharia threat” in post-2020 appeals decisions
Federal appellate courts have explicitly described the alleged danger of Sharia infiltrating U.S. courts as a myth and used that finding to block state amendments that singled out Islamic law, most notably in an appeals ruling that affirmed an injunction against Oklahoma’s anti‑Sharia constitutional amendment and found it likely to violate the Establishment Clause [1]. That decision rejected the state’s factual predicate—there was no concrete problem the amendment remedied—and treated the measure as discriminatory in purpose and effect, a legal posture mirrored in other post-2010 litigation that resurfaced after 2020 [1] [2].
2. Constitutional grounds: Establishment Clause and free‑exercise concerns
Courts confronted with these laws have leaned on First Amendment doctrine, holding that blanket prohibitions on applying “Sharia” or the law of a particular religion risk state endorsement or hostility toward religion and therefore run afoul of the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses; prominent legal organizations have echoed that view and urged courts to reject broad bans [1] [3] [2]. The American Bar Association and multiple legal scholars warned that blanket exclusions based on religious identity are both unnecessary—because existing conflict‑of‑laws principles already prevent enforcement of foreign rules inconsistent with public policy—and constitutionally suspect [3] [2].
3. Practical and doctrinal limits identified by courts and commentators
Beyond constitutional language, judges and commentators have emphasized that U.S. courts rarely “apply” Sharia as a system and that state law already controls when foreign or religious norms conflict with American public policy, meaning the statutory fix sought by advocates is duplicative and potentially disruptive to private arbitration and religiously informed contracts [4] [2]. Scholars and civil‑rights groups have documented how anti‑Sharia templates—often traced to groups like American Laws for American Courts and figures such as David Yerushalmi—seek to reshape court treatment of foreign law despite scant evidence that U.S. courts are defaulting to religious law, a point courts have cited when dismissing the necessity of such bans [4] [2].
4. Litigation pattern: injunctions, enforcements blocked, and continued legislative push
The post-2020 record shows a recurring litigated pattern: legislatures introduce or voters approve measures restricting foreign/religious law, civil‑rights groups sue, and courts often enjoin enforcement or strike them down on constitutional grounds—Oklahoma’s case being a prominent example of that cycle [1] [2]. Meanwhile, advocacy networks continue to circulate model language and political campaigns to revive or rebrand restrictions [4] [2], producing repeated clashes that keep the issue active in court dockets even as judges emphasize legal limits to the stated problem.
5. Limits of available reporting and unresolved questions
The sources collected document high‑profile appellate rulings and legal commentary but do not provide a comprehensive catalog of every state‑level post‑2020 decision; therefore, while the trend in published rulings points to constitutional invalidation or narrow interpretation of anti‑Sharia measures, fuller empirical mapping of all post‑2020 state litigation would be needed to quantify exceptions or divergent lower‑court outcomes [1] [2] [4]. What is clear from the available reporting is that courts have repeatedly treated explicit anti‑Sharia or foreign‑law bans skeptically, relying on First Amendment jurisprudence and existing conflict‑of‑laws principles to limit or block measures that single out Islamic law [1] [3] [2].