Which US states have proposed bans on Sharia law after 2020 and what were the results?

1. What states proposed new bans after 2020 — the apparent places of action

Available sources point most clearly to Texas as the focal state after 2020: Governor Greg Abbott publicly framed recent Texas measures as “banning Sharia law” and as targeting so‑called “Sharia compounds,” linking them to the EPIC City controversy; Texas had earlier adopted American Laws for American Courts–style protections that limit courts from enforcing foreign laws inconsistent with U.S. law ^{[1] [7]}. Reporting and tracking organizations also document that since the 2010–2012 wave, state legislatures — including ones mentioned in coverage such as Idaho, Maine, Alabama, and others — periodically introduce anti‑Sharia or “foreign law” bills; AP, the Center for Public Integrity and academic sources show a continuing stream of proposals and model‑bill networks pushing copy‑cat legislation into statehouses ^{[8] [9] [5]}.

2. Results: what passed, what was blocked, and what was symbolic

Historical court interventions remain central: Oklahoma’s 2010 ballot ban naming Sharia was later blocked by federal courts as unconstitutional, and civil‑liberties groups have continued to challenge similar measures ^{[10] [4]}. More recently, some states have adopted constitutional clarifications or statutes limiting application of foreign law (Alabama’s 2021 amendment is an example) rather than an explicit “Sharia” text; those measures commonly state that foreign or religious law cannot be applied in ways that violate state or U.S. constitutional rights ^[11]. Texas officials assert new laws ban Sharia in 2025, but civil‑rights groups say the state already had statutes limiting enforcement of foreign codes and that claims of “Sharia compounds” lack evidence ^{[1] [12]}.

3. Federal spotlight and copy‑cat model bills pushing the issue

National Republican lawmakers have introduced federal proposals — labeled the “No Shari’a Act” or “Preserving a Sharia‑Free America Act” — aiming to bar enforcement of Sharia where it conflicts with constitutional rights or to change immigration rules tied to alleged advocacy of Sharia ^{[2] [13] [3]}. Investigations by the Center for Public Integrity and others trace much state activity to model‑bill networks (American Laws for American Courts and related groups) that circulate language for multiple states, producing waves of similar bills across legislative sessions ^[8].

4. Legal and practical limits to state bans — voices of mainstream legal groups

Legal scholars, the ACLU and the American Bar Association argue existing federal and state law already prevents courts from enforcing foreign or religious laws that conflict with constitutional protections, and they warn targeted bans can be redundant, legally vulnerable and discriminatory ^{[4] [5]}. The Brennan Center and other analysts have warned “foreign law” bans can unintentionally disrupt contractual, adoption or arbitration arrangements that rely on religious or foreign norms ^{[14] [6]}.

5. Political motives and consequences — who benefits and who is harmed

Coverage and investigations identify a political motive: model bills act as organizing tools for anti‑Muslim groups and for lawmakers seeking cultural‑security messaging, especially amid controversies like proposed Muslim‑community developments; supporters frame bills as constitutional protection, while opponents call them thinly veiled Islamophobia ^{[8] [15] [9]}. Civil‑liberties groups say such measures stigmatize Muslim communities and can fuel discrimination even when courts ultimately limit enforcement ^{[4] [12]}.

6. Limits of the record and what reporting does not say

Available sources do not provide a comprehensive, state‑by‑state list of every post‑2020 bill with final votes; many outlets document trends, high‑profile state actions (Texas), federal proposals, and the role of model‑bill networks, but a full catalog of results for every introduced measure after 2020 is not contained in the provided reporting (not found in current reporting). Where states have enacted language, the coverage shows many enactments resemble earlier “foreign law” statutes or constitutional clarifications rather than a straightforward, enforceable “Sharia ban” ^{[11] [6]}.

Bottom line: after 2020 the debate shifted from an earlier wave of state ballot measures to a mix of state statutes, assertive rhetoric (notably Texas) and renewed federal proposals. Legal groups, courts and analysts stress redundancy and constitutional problems with explicit anti‑Sharia bans and document a model‑bill network driving much of the activity ^{[4] [10] [8]}.