Fact check: Can states in the US ban the implementation of sharia law, and have any done so?

1. How a viral video turned into a political ban that grabbed headlines

Texas Governor Greg Abbott's announcement followed a widely shared video of a local imam urging Muslim-owned shops to avoid selling alcohol, pork and lottery tickets; Abbott characterized that outreach as an attempt to impose religious rules and framed his statement as protecting Texans from religious coercion ^{[1] [2]}. The governor linked his remarks to prior legislation—commonly described as the American Laws for American Courts-style statutes—saying Texas already forbids courts from enforcing foreign or religious law where it conflicts with U.S. law, making the “ban” more a public reiteration than a new statute ^[1].

2. What the 2017 law actually does and what it does not do

The cited 2017 law prevents Texas courts from applying foreign or religious codes that would contradict U.S. law, which lawmakers and administrators interpret as a shield against adjudicative adoption of religious legal regimes. That statute is procedural and narrow: it restrains judicial recognition of foreign/religious rules in adjudication but does not create a standalone criminal prohibition on religious practice or private arbitration under consensual religious mediation, nor does it criminalize religious belief or worship ^[1]. The governor’s rhetoric presents enforcement as broader than the statutory mechanics imply.

3. Competing narratives: security measure versus targeted rhetoric

Supporters of Abbott’s pronouncement present it as a straightforward protection of secular governance—ensuring no religious code overrides American statutory rights—while critics, including Muslim advocacy groups, view the messaging as stigmatizing and politically opportunistic, arguing the announcement amplifies fear about Muslim communities without documenting systemic legal threats ^{[1] [2]}. Coverage shows the administration used the video as a catalyst for a public safety advisory, whereas civil rights organizations contend the response could legitimize discrimination against ordinary religious practice ^{[1] [2]}.

4. Have other states passed similar bans? The reporting is mixed and sparse

The materials provided focus on Texas and do not document a flurry of new state laws specifically labeled "Sharia bans" enacted in 2025; instead, they reference the broader category of American Laws for American Courts statutes, which many states adopted in prior years to prevent courts from enforcing foreign religious law when inconsistent with U.S. law ^[1]. One article notes proposals and political pushes—such as Republican bills seeking explicit nationwide prohibitions—but those references in the dataset are not substantiated with final enactments in the supplied reporting ^[3].

5. International comparisons highlight different concerns but do not prove U.S. parallels

Commentary from the British context describes private Islamic tribunals and social pressure dynamics in the U.K., warning about parallel dispute resolution mechanisms that can harm vulnerable people; that analysis underscores why some U.S. officials talk about Sharia preemption. However, the U.K. examples do not show direct legal equivalence to Texas’s statutory framework; they instead serve as cautionary analogies used in American political rhetoric ^[4]. The U.S. context, per these sources, centers on preventing judicial adoption of foreign law rather than codifying religion-wide bans.

6. Where the reports agree and where they diverge—legal substance vs. political framing

All sources note the governor’s announcement and the viral video as the proximate cause of the policy statement, and they agree that existing law limits courts from applying inconsistent foreign or religious rules—a legal barrier that predates the announcement ^[1]. They diverge sharply on tone: some outlets present the announcement as a clear enforcement action, while others emphasize civil-rights criticisms and label the rhetoric misleading. The supplied materials lack independent documentation of courts being coerced into applying Sharia prior to the announcement ^{[1] [2]}.

7. Bottom line and key omissions you should note

Based on the reporting provided, Texas officials reiterated and publicized an existing statutory limitation on courts applying foreign or religious laws, and framed that reiteration as a ban on Sharia enforcement; the materials do not show a new criminal prohibition nor widespread judicial application of Sharia in Texas. The coverage omits granular legal analysis, court cases, or evidence of systemic enforcement attempts, and it shows clear political and advocacy angles—pro-government public-safety framing and civil-rights pushback—that shape readers’ interpretations ^{[2] [1]}.