Which US states have passed anti-sharia laws since 2010 and what did each law prohibit?
Executive summary
Since 2010 dozens of U.S. states considered or passed laws aimed at blocking “Sharia” or foreign/religious law; databases count between roughly 201 and 233 anti‑Sharia/anti‑Muslim bills introduced across 40+ states and some dozen states enacting measures (sources track 201 introduced bills in 43 states (SPLC) and 233 in other counts) [1] [2]. State measures typically prohibit courts from applying foreign, international or “religious” law (often framed as “American Laws for American Courts”), or ban specific practices like so‑called “Sharia compounds” — not the religious practice of Islam itself [3] [4].
1. What these laws actually say — template text and common prohibitions
Most enacted measures follow a model called American Laws for American Courts (ALAC), which uses language forbidding courts from recognizing or applying foreign or religious law in ways inconsistent with state public policy; some versions explicitly name “Sharia.” The ALAC template and copycat bills generally bar state courts from considering foreign legal codes where they conflict with constitutional or public‑policy norms, and some drafts included draconian language in early versions (a reported ALAC draft once criminalized “adherence” as a felony in its harshest form) [3] [5].
2. How many bills and where — competing counts and limits
Available sources disagree on counts but agree the phenomenon is widespread: the Southern Poverty Law Center records 201 anti‑Sharia bills introduced since 2010 in 43 states and notes enactments in states including Texas and Arkansas in specific years [1]. The Othering & Belonging Institute and American Bar Association‑linked reporting put the broader total of anti‑Muslim or “anti‑Sharia” bills at over 230 (or 233 in other academic accounting) since 2010, and track many proposals that never became law [6] [2]. Wikipedia’s summary lists states that have passed “foreign law bans,” naming Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana, South Dakota, Tennessee, North Carolina, and Alabama among others — but Wikipedia is a secondary aggregator and reflects evolving entries [7].
3. Which states enacted measures — patterns and prominent examples
Multiple sources identify a cluster of states that enacted laws or amendments restricting use of foreign or religious law. Oklahoma voters approved a 2010 constitutional amendment explicitly banning courts from considering Sharia and international law; that amendment was later blocked by federal courts for singling out Islam [8] [9]. State enactments and vetoed bills also appeared in places such as Texas (governor signing measures to ban alleged “Sharia compounds”), Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, North Carolina, Tennessee, Alabama and others — though the legal texts vary in scope and enforcement mechanisms [7] [4] [5].
4. Legal challenges and constitutional limits
Courts and civil‑liberties groups have repeatedly challenged these measures. A federal appeals court blocked Oklahoma’s ban, finding it likely violated the Establishment Clause by singling out Islam; the ACLU and others argued the bans discriminate against religious minorities and could invalidate routine private arbitration or contract choices [9] [10]. The American Bar Association publicly opposed blanket prohibitions on applying entire bodies of religious law in courts [1].
5. Why lawmakers pushed these bills — politics, networks and messaging
Independent reporting traces much of the legislative campaign to a coordinated network — AC T for America, Center for Security Policy, and ALAC’s drafters — that produced copy‑paste bills and framed them as “protecting” American law from foreign or extremist influence. Critics and researchers argue the real aim was to stoke Islamophobia and create electoral messaging advantages; supporters say the measures merely guard sovereignty of U.S. law [5] [11] [3].
6. Practical impact and unintended consequences
In practice these laws had limited demonstrable legal necessity — supporters could not point to systemic court reliance on Sharia — and opponents warned bans could hamper enforcement of arbitration clauses, international contracts, and religious dispute resolution used by multiple faith communities, with potential harm to commerce and religious freedom [3] [12]. Empirical trackers show many bills were proposed but fell short of enactment; courts have curtailed or blocked particularly explicit, religion‑targeting measures [1] [9].
7. What reporting does not settle
Available sources do not offer a single, authoritative list tying every enacted statute text to a definitive state-by-state catalog in this packet of materials; counts differ (201 vs. ~233 vs. “over 230”) depending on definitions and whether broader anti‑Muslim bills are included [1] [2] [6]. For precise statutory language and current legal status, state legislative texts and recent court rulings should be consulted; those primary documents are not included among the sources provided here.
Sources: SPLC tracking of 201 introduced bills [1]; Othering & Belonging / UC Berkeley counts and mapping [6]; academic and legal critiques including Oklahoma SQ755 discussion [8]; reporting on networks and ALAC model bill [5]; analysis of consequences and template language [3]; ACLU court rulings blocking Oklahoma ban [9]; summary lists on Wikipedia [7].