Which US states have considered or passed laws banning sharia law and when were they enacted?

1. A wave of state bills in 2009–2011 — coordinated campaign and scale

A coordinated national campaign in the late 2000s pushed legislatures across the country to introduce “anti‑Sharia” language; reporting and advocacy groups say that in 2010–2011 more than two dozen — and by some tallies over 40 — states introduced bills to restrict courts from consulting Sharia or foreign/religious law ^{[1] [5] [3]}. The campaign’s organizers and backers are named in recent coverage; opponents argue the effort was designed to single out Muslims ^{[5] [2]}.

2. Which states enacted prohibitions, and what did they say?

Multiple state laws and constitutional measures took aim at “Sharia” or at the use of foreign/religious law in courts. Sources list Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana, South Dakota, Tennessee, North Carolina and Alabama as states that “banned Sharia” by passing foreign‑law bans or similar statutes ^{[1] [6]}. Oklahoma voters approved a 2010 constitutional amendment explicitly barring Sharia and international law from state courts — a high‑profile example of such enactments ^{[1] [2]}.

3. Legal pushback and court rulings — Oklahoma as a test case

The Oklahoma amendment drew immediate constitutional challenge; courts found the ballot measure discriminatory and issued injunctions blocking its enforcement, with judges concluding the ban risked harm to Muslims and singled out a religious minority ^{[1] [4] [2]}. The American Civil Liberties Union documented and litigated against such measures, arguing they violate the First Amendment and target a faith community ^{[4] [2]}.

4. Why critics say these laws were unnecessary and harmful

Legal and civil‑liberties organizations — and professional bodies like the American Bar Association (noted in summaries of the debate) — argued that existing safeguards already prevent foreign rules that conflict with U.S. policy or anti‑discrimination norms, and that “Sharia bans” risked collateral damage to other religious arbitration practices ^{[1] [7]}. Jewish groups and others warned bans could interfere with religious arbitration practices used across faiths ^[7].

5. Recent iterations and new state measures (post‑2010 examples)

The anti‑Sharia debate resurfaced in later years in new forms. For example, Texas in 2025 enacted a law described by the governor as banning so‑called “Sharia compounds” after publicity about an allegedly Muslim‑led housing project; critics and reporting note there are no formal Sharia courts in Texas and characterize many measures as responses to rumors and political pressure ^{[8] [5]}. Congressional proposals to ban Sharia at the federal level have also been introduced as recently as 2025, showing the topic remains politically active ^{[9] [10] [11]}.

6. Competing perspectives and implicit agendas

Supporters of bans say they guard constitutional order and prevent foreign or religious laws from supplanting U.S. law; proponents frame measures as neutral “foreign law” provisions ^{[1] [9]}. Opponents — civil‑rights groups, many legal scholars, and some religious organizations — say the movement is rooted in anti‑Muslim bias, unnecessary given existing law, likely unconstitutional, and harmful to religious minorities that use arbitration ^{[2] [7] [5]}. Reporting identifies organized campaigns and activists behind the push, suggesting political motivations beyond neutral legal reform ^[5].

7. Limitations in available sources and unanswered specifics

Available sources list several states that passed foreign‑law bans and highlight Oklahoma’s 2010 amendment and subsequent court rulings, but a comprehensive, state‑by‑state timeline with exact enactment dates for every law is not fully enumerated in the materials provided here (not found in current reporting). For precise enactment dates and the text of each state law, primary state legislative records or a dedicated legal database would be required; the provided sources supply summaries and high‑level lists ^{[1] [2] [7]}.

8. Bottom line for readers

A substantial national effort in 2009–2011 produced dozens of proposals and several enacted measures aimed at banning “Sharia” or foreign law; enforcement and scope have repeatedly been curtailed by courts and criticized as discriminatory ^{[1] [4] [2]}. The story remains politically charged: proponents claim constitutional protection, while opponents and litigants cite evidence of targeted anti‑Muslim intent and legal vulnerability ^{[2] [5]}.