Which state courts have ruled anti-sharia laws unconstitutional and why?
Executive summary
Federal and state courts have repeatedly struck down or blocked “anti‑Sharia” measures as unconstitutional in litigation tied to Oklahoma and similar state bans; courts found such measures discriminated against Muslims and lacked a valid secular purpose, as in the federal Awad v. Ziriax line of cases referenced by civil‑liberties groups [1] [2]. Advocacy groups and legal observers say newer congressional proposals mirror those struck down and would face the same First and Fourteenth Amendment problems [3] [4].
1. The headline case: Oklahoma’s ban was blocked and then upheld as blocked by appeals courts
A federal lawsuit successfully challenged Oklahoma’s 2010 ballot amendment that singled out “Sharia” and “international law,” leading to a federal judge’s injunction and a unanimous federal appeals court decision upholding that injunction — the ACLU framed the appeals decision as a clear judicial rebuke to the state ban [1] [2].
2. Court reasoning: discrimination and lack of secular purpose
Legal advocates argued and courts found that measures singling out Sharia targeted a religious group and therefore violated the First Amendment’s Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection guarantees; the ACLU and CAIR point to Awad v. Ziriax and related litigation as precedent that bans framed to exclude “foreign” or “religious” law are discriminatory and unconstitutional [2] [3].
3. Broader pattern: multiple states considered or passed bans, but legal vulnerability is consistent
More than two dozen states considered anti‑Sharia or foreign‑law bans and several states — including Alabama, Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana, South Dakota, Tennessee, and North Carolina — passed versions of foreign‑law restrictions, but civil‑liberties organizations warn those laws are vulnerable to the same constitutional challenge that felled Oklahoma’s amendment [5] [2].
4. Advocacy groups’ analysis: redundancy and constitutional defects
Groups such as CAIR and the ACLU argue that bans are unnecessary because existing legal safeguards already prevent courts from enforcing foreign judgments that violate U.S. constitutional rights, and they describe anti‑Sharia bills as redundant, legally indefensible, and rooted in misinformation or bigotry — a view spelled out in CAIR’s congressional briefing and the ACLU’s coverage of the Oklahoma litigation [3] [2].
5. Political revival: federal bills echo state bans and trigger the same objections
Recent federal proposals such as the “No Sharia Act” and “Preserving a Sharia‑Free America Act,” introduced by members of Congress and the Senate, replicate language barring courts from enforcing Sharia or foreign laws and would likely confront the same constitutional challenges noted in state litigation; civil‑liberties groups have publicly labeled these measures “unconstitutional” and “bigotry” [6] [4] [3].
6. Competing viewpoints: sponsors cite constitutional protection, critics cite discrimination
Sponsors of anti‑Sharia legislation frame the bills as protective of American constitutional norms and public safety, asserting courts should not enforce foreign rules that conflict with U.S. law [7] [6]. Critics counter that the bills’ explicit naming of Sharia and blunt bans on “foreign” or “religious” law signal religious animus and are constitutionally suspect, a point underscored by prior court rulings and ACLU/CAIR analyses [2] [3].
7. What court decisions did not say (limitations of available reporting)
Available sources document Oklahoma’s blocked amendment and the ACLU/CAIR legal analyses, but the provided reporting does not supply full texts of the court opinions here, other state‑by‑state judicial decisions beyond Oklahoma, nor the detailed legal reasoning from appellate opinions in every related case — those documents are “not found in current reporting” among the supplied sources [1] [2].
8. Why past rulings matter for new bills and state measures
Courts look for government actions’ purposes and effects; when a law explicitly targets a particular religion or lacks a secular justification, courts have voided it — the Oklahoma injunction and subsequent appellate treatment are cited repeatedly by civil‑liberties organizations as controlling precedent that undercuts both state and federal “anti‑Sharia” proposals [1] [2] [3].
Bottom line: judicial history in the supplied reporting shows at least one major state-level ban (Oklahoma’s) was blocked and that civil‑liberties groups view that precedent as a strong predictor that similar state or federal bans will be declared unconstitutional for discriminating against religion and lacking valid secular purpose [1] [2] [3].