How do US courts currently handle cases involving sharia law?
Executive summary
U.S. courts do not apply “Sharia law” as a parallel legal system; religious arbitration and recognition of foreign-law facts occur within established federal and state rules, including the 1925 Federal Arbitration Act and ordinary choice-of-law principles [1] [2]. Recent political actions—most notably Texas Governor Greg Abbott’s 2025 call for investigations—have amplified fears despite reporting that there is no evidence of formal Sharia courts operating or of courts substituting U.S. law with Islamic law [3] [4].
1. Where Sharia appears in U.S. courts: arbitration and recognition of foreign facts
American courts sometimes give legal effect to decisions reached through private religious arbitration (including Muslim panels) because federal and state arbitration law enforces certain private agreements; the 1925 Federal Arbitration Act allows religious tribunals’ judgments to be given legal force when they meet ordinary arbitration requirements [1]. Separately, U.S. judges may apply foreign law as a fact—such as recognizing a marriage or inheritance governed by another country’s laws—so when those foreign legal determinations are rooted in Sharia systems, courts treat them the same way they would any foreign-law rule, constrained by U.S. public policy and procedural protections [2].
2. Constitutional and public‑policy limits prevent religious law from supplanting U.S. law
Multiple legal analyses and civil‑liberties groups emphasize that the First Amendment and existing case law constrain courts from applying any religious rules in a way that violates constitutional rights or entrenched public policy; courts have mechanisms to refuse or limit application of foreign or religious law when it conflicts with U.S. law [5] [2]. Legal scholars warn anti‑Sharia bans themselves can be overbroad and disrupt ordinary legal practices—such as enforcing arbitration awards or interpreting foreign-law contracts—because they risk invalidating secular agreements that reference other legal systems [1] [6].
3. The politics and panic: why “Sharia bans” spread despite sparse evidence
A coordinated anti‑Sharia movement pushed state-level bans and ballot measures in the 2000s and 2010s, prompting more than a half-dozen states to pursue restrictions on using foreign, international, or religious law; advocates framed “foreign law” as shorthand for Islamic law even where courts had not been enforcing it [3] [7]. Reporting and advocacy groups note those campaigns amplified fear without substantive evidence that U.S. courts are being taken over by Sharia, and some courts have struck down such bans as discriminatory [1] [8].
4. Recent flashpoint: Texas investigations and the media debate
In November 2025, Texas Governor Greg Abbott urged criminal investigations into entities he characterized as “Sharia tribunals,” asserting they might be masquerading as courts—an action local outlets and national commentary framed as politically driven and lacking documented complaints or clear legal irregularities [9] [3]. Local lawsuits followed, with organizations such as CAIR’s legal arm challenging the governor’s proclamations as defamatory and without factual basis, and reporters noting that what exist in Texas are voluntary mediation panels analogous to Jewish Beth Din and Christian arbitration services rather than state-sanctioned Sharia courts [4] [3].
5. Two competing viewpoints in the record
One strand sees an urgent threat: conservative outlets and some policymakers warn Sharia is incompatible with “western civilization” and must be policed to prevent parallel legal systems [10] [9]. The opposing, legally grounded view—articulated by civil‑liberties advocates, legal scholars, and trade/faith organizations—says there is little empirical danger of Sharia supplanting U.S. law, that religious arbitration is long embedded in U.S. practice, and that bans may harm commerce and religious freedom [6] [5] [1].
6. Practical bottom line for litigants and judges
Courts continue to adjudicate disputes under U.S. law while sometimes enforcing private arbitration awards or recognizing foreign-law facts, subject to constitutional and public policy limits; they do not accept religious codes that would contravene due process or statutory protections [2] [5]. Where activists or politicians allege “Sharia courts,” available reporting notes that evidence is lacking and investigations have been criticized as politically motivated [3] [4].
Limitations: available sources do not mention comprehensive empirical counts of how often U.S. courts have incorporated specific Sharia rules in private judgments; they also do not provide the full text of the recent Texas investigations or the outcomes of any pending litigation beyond initial filings [4] [9].