How have federal courts ruled on the constitutionality of state anti‑Sharia laws and amendments?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Federal courts have repeatedly struck down or blocked state measures that single out “Sharia” or broadly ban foreign or religious law as unconstitutional, finding such provisions unnecessary and discriminatory; the federal appeals decision blocking Oklahoma’s 2010 amendment is the clearest example (ACLU reporting on the appeals court upholding the injunction) [1] [2]. Civil-rights groups and bar associations argue these bans are unnecessary because U.S. courts already refuse to enforce religious rules that conflict with public policy, a point reflected in reporting from the SPLC, Politifact and legal analyses [3] [4] [5].
1. How the federal courts have ruled: the Oklahoma template and its aftermath
Federal courts struck down or blocked implementation of state constitutional and statutory bans that explicitly targeted Sharia or foreign law. The most prominent case involved Oklahoma’s 2010 amendment: a federal judge enjoined the measure and an appeals court later upheld the injunction, finding the state could not identify any actual problem the amendment addressed and that singling out Sharia raised constitutional problems, as reported by the ACLU [1] [2]. Legal advocates cite that ruling as the strongest judicial rebuke to the anti‑Sharia movement [2].
2. Constitutional grounds courts and advocates highlight
Challenges to anti‑Sharia measures rest chiefly on the First Amendment and equal‑protection principles: laws that single out a particular religion treat that faith as suspect and therefore run afoul of constitutional protections, according to ACLU advocacy and broader legal commentary [2]. The American Bar Association and other legal authorities have publicly opposed blanket prohibitions on a particular religion’s law, noting that courts already protect public policy and constitutional rights when evaluating religious‑based adjudications and arbitration [3] [4].
3. What courts already do in practice: arbitration, religious tribunals and public‑policy limits
Federal and state courts routinely enforce private arbitration and religious mediation decisions so long as those agreements do not violate public policy or constitutional protections. PolitiFact and academic reporting note courts will refuse to enforce tribunal decisions that conflict with public policy (for example on child custody) and that the Federal Arbitration Act allows religious tribunals’ awards to be enforced when consistent with U.S. law [4] [5] [6]. This existing framework undercuts the claimed necessity of blanket bans, a point frequently made by opponents of the measures [2] [3].
4. The political network and motivations behind bans
Investigations trace much of the anti‑Sharia legislation to a network promoting model bills (e.g., “American Laws for American Courts”) drafted by activists and lawyers, which critics say invoked Sharia rhetoric while claiming religious neutrality (Center for Public Integrity) [7]. Civil‑rights groups and legal observers characterize the movement as driven in large part by Islamophobia and political messaging rather than demonstrated legal need; the ACLU and SPLC emphasize that proponents rarely point to real cases where courts applied Sharia to subvert U.S. law [2] [7] [3].
5. Mixed enforcement outcomes and the smaller practical footprint of “Sharia” in courts
Scholars and longform reporting show that what some call “Sharia in American courts” is often private arbitration or religious mediation that operates within the same legal constraints that govern other faith‑based tribunals (Jewish Beth Din, Christian mediations). Reporting in SAPIENS and legal journals argues that fears have been inflated: when religious tribunal outcomes contradict public policy, courts reverse or refuse enforcement [5] [6]. The Center for Public Integrity likewise notes that instances where Sharia shaped U.S. judicial outcomes are sparse and usually overturned on appeal [7].
6. Limitations in the record and competing viewpoints
Available sources document successful federal challenges (Oklahoma) and broad legal opposition (ABA, ACLU, SPLC) [1] [2] [3]. They also show proponents argue model legislation is religiously neutral and necessary to prevent perceived incursions of foreign law—an argument discussed by drafters and supporters but criticized by observers for lacking real examples [7] [8]. Sources do not provide comprehensive coverage of every state court ruling; "mixed" impacts are reported but a full inventory of all state‑level litigation outcomes is not found in the current reporting (not found in current reporting).
7. What to watch next
Future litigation will likely continue where state legislatures pass copycat bills or governors take administrative actions targeting Muslim organizations—these provoke federal constitutional challenges similar to the Oklahoma litigation [1] [9]. Watch for two recurring themes in reporting and court rulings: whether a law expressly targets a religion (which courts treat with special scrutiny) and whether plaintiffs can show any concrete injury or real‑world problem the law is meant to solve—courts have rejected measures where states could not identify such a problem [2].
Sources cited: ACLU coverage of the Oklahoma injunction and appeals ruling [1] [2]; Center for Public Integrity mapping of model‑bill networks [7]; SPLC and ABA positions summarized in recent reporting [3]; PolitiFact and SAPIENS analyses on enforcement of religious tribunal decisions and the practical role of Islamic law in the U.S. [4] [5]; additional legal commentary and academic surveys [6] [10].