Which U.S. states have passed bans on Sharia law and when did they enact them?

1. What people mean by “banned Sharia” — legal forms and shorthand

“Banning Sharia” in U.S. state law usually refers not to outlawing a religion but to statutes, constitutional amendments, or ballot measures that prohibit state courts from applying “foreign,” “international,” or religious law (a common legislative package called American Laws for American Courts). Sources emphasize that most measures were framed as bans on foreign or international law rather than explicit religious prohibitions, although some measures did name “Sharia” ^{[3] [4]}.

2. Which states are commonly listed and why the lists vary

Compilations differ because some count only measures that explicitly named Sharia, others count broader foreign‑law prohibitions, and still others include proposals that failed. Wikipedia’s entry (as summarized in the provided results) lists Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana, South Dakota, Tennessee, North Carolina, and Alabama as states that “have ‘banned sharia’” while also noting a wave of consideration in 2010–2011 across many legislatures ^[3]. Other sources (civil liberties groups, policy maps) track dozens of bills and opposed measures but caution that the practical effect and wording vary ^{[1] [5] [4]}.

3. Timing: concentrated legislative wave in 2010–2011

The peak of legislative activity occurred around 2010–2011 when more than two dozen states considered restrictions on courts consulting Sharia or foreign/religious law; some states enacted laws or amendments in that period ^[3]. The Oklahoma constitutional amendment—approved by voters in November 2010—is a widely cited example from that wave ^{[1] [3]}.

4. Legal pushback and courtroom outcomes

Civil‑liberties organizations challenged several measures. The ACLU documents that the Oklahoma amendment and similar provisions raised constitutional problems and that federal courts blocked implementation of Oklahoma’s amendment; an appeals court upheld a ruling blocking the amendment in January 2012 ^{[1] [2]}. These challenges illustrate that passage on a ballot or in a legislature did not guarantee enforceable law in practice ^[2].

5. Policy and community context: stated aims vs. critiques

Proponents framed these measures as protecting U.S. law supremacy and preventing foreign legal standards from trumping state law. Critics—civil‑liberties and Jewish community groups cited in reporting—warned that such bans are unnecessary, can harm trade and contract enforcement that legitimately reference foreign law, and often mask anti‑Muslim bias because they single out Sharia while affecting other religious arbitration ^{[4] [1]}. The American Bar Association and other legal observers opposed blanket foreign‑law bans as unnecessary given existing safeguards ^[3].

6. How definitive are published lists and claims about “majority” bans?

Fact‑checking outlets and analysts have disputed broad claims such as “a majority of states banned Sharia.” PolitiFact concluded that headlines asserting most states banned Sharia exaggerate reality: many states considered measures, and while a subset enacted foreign‑law restrictions, the characterization that a majority of states “banned Sharia” is misleading ^[6]. Wikipedia and other summaries provide counts but also note nuance in language and scope ^[3].

7. Recent federal and political developments in 2024–2025 (select examples)

In 2025 some federal lawmakers renewed efforts to legislate against Sharia at the national level—Senators and Representatives introduced “No Sharia” bills and related measures—showing the issue remains politically salient beyond the earlier state‑level wave ^{[7] [8] [9]}. Reporting frames these proposals as building on prior state activity but the provided sources do not document new state enactments in 2024–2025 ^{[7] [8]}.

8. Bottom line and reporting limitations

Available sources confirm a concentrated flurry of state activity in 2010–2011, name several states with enacted measures (e.g., Oklahoma’s 2010 amendment) and list others (Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana, South Dakota, Tennessee, North Carolina, Alabama) as having passed foreign‑law bans per Wikipedia ^[3]. The ACLU and court records show significant legal challenges, including a federal appeals court blocking Oklahoma’s amendment ^{[1] [2]}. Comprehensive, authoritative state‑by‑state dates and final legal statuses are not fully enumerated in the supplied results; a definitive, up‑to‑date list with enactment dates and judicial outcomes is not found in the current reporting provided here (not found in current reporting).