Which U.S. states have passed anti-Sharia measures and how have courts responded to those laws?

1. How the anti‑Sharia push spread: a model and a movement

The proliferation of "anti‑Sharia" statutes and resolutions traces back to copy‑and‑paste model language published by a group called American Laws for American Courts (ALAC) and promoted by figures such as David Yerushalmi; that template — though later rewritten in places to say "foreign law" rather than explicitly "Sharia" — was introduced or considered in legislatures nationwide and fueled a nationwide campaign of bills and ballot measures ^{[1] [5] [2]}.

2. Which states enacted measures — and how many depends on counting

State action ranged from ballot amendments to statutes and proposed bills: Oklahoma’s 2010 constitutional amendment that explicitly named "Sharia" is the most prominent example and passed at the ballot box, while numerous other states adopted ALAC‑style statutory language or introduced similar bills; reporting and advocacy groups count different totals, but at least a dozen states enacted laws or constitutional language aimed at banning foreign or religious law in some form, and other sources have reported figures around 16 states depending on definitions and dates ^{[4] [6] [2]}.

3. The legal community’s pushback: ABA, Brennan Center and civil liberties groups

Major legal organizations warned against blanket bans: the American Bar Association formally opposed state or federal laws that "impose blanket prohibitions" on consideration of an entire religion’s law, arguing existing public‑policy doctrines already prevent courts from applying foreign legal norms that contradict constitutional rights ^{[4] [2]}. The Brennan Center cautioned that such bans could unintentionally invalidate routine contracts and arbitration awards that incorporate religious norms — a practical legal fallout often overlooked by bill sponsors ^[4].

4. Court rulings: reversal, blocking and narrow remedies

Federal courts have been active in policing these measures: a federal appeals court unanimously upheld a blockade of Oklahoma’s amendment, noting advocates could not point to any actual instances of Sharia invading Oklahoma courts and finding the amendment discriminatory and unnecessary ^{[7] [3]}. Elsewhere, short‑lived state court decisions invoking concerns about foreign religious law were reversed on appeal, illustrating that judicial review frequently strips the issue of its political momentum and restores existing constitutional safeguards ^[2].

5. The political defense and continuing federal proposals

Proponents contend the laws are neutral protections of American law — a claim emphasized by authors of the ALAC model and repeated by some legislators — but reporting from the Center for Public Integrity and civil‑rights groups documents that supporters nevertheless invoke "Sharia" as the motivating threat and can cite few if any real examples where U.S. courts improperly applied Sharia ^{[1] [2]}. The policy debate has even migrated to the federal level, with post‑2020 proposals framed as "No Sharia" acts intended to bar enforcement of foreign laws that would violate constitutional rights ^[8].

6. Bottom line: statutes passed, but courts and legal experts largely neutralize them

States did enact a patchwork of laws and amendments restricting use of foreign or religious law, often using ALAC‑style language and sometimes explicitly naming Sharia, but courts, professional associations and civil‑rights organizations have repeatedly undermined the practical and legal rationale for those laws — blocking implementation, reversing decisions, and warning of discriminatory effects and unintended collateral damage to routine private agreements and minority religious practices ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]}. Precise tallies of "how many states" depend on definitions and timing; public‑interest reporting and advocacy databases provide evolving counts but uniformly show widespread legislative activity met by sustained judicial and institutional resistance ^{[6] [9] [2]}.