Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What states banned Sheria Law
Executive summary
States that passed measures explicitly described as banning Sharia or restricting foreign/religious law include Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana, South Dakota, Tennessee, North Carolina and Alabama; Oklahoma voters approved a constitutional amendment in 2010 that was later blocked by courts (examples summarized in reporting) [1] [2]. However, many of those measures are framed as “foreign‑law” or “American Laws for American Courts” statutes, courts have struck or limited some efforts, and fact‑checkers say claims that a majority of states have banned Sharia are exaggerated [1] [2] [3].
1. What “banned Sharia” means in practice
When reporting says a state “banned Sharia,” it most often refers to legislation or ballot measures that bar state courts from applying foreign, international, or religious law — sometimes phrased as prohibiting “Sharia” specifically, other times as part of broader “foreign‑law” restrictions [1] [2]. Supporters framed these measures as preserving the supremacy of U.S. law; critics and legal groups say they are unnecessary and target Muslims [1] [2].
2. States commonly listed as having enacted bans
Multiple overviews and legal analyses list Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana, South Dakota, Tennessee, North Carolina and Alabama as states that have enacted measures characterized as banning Sharia or passing foreign‑law bans [1] [4]. These statutes vary in language and scope — some are statutes, some are constitutional amendments or ballot initiatives — and they are often described under the rubric “American Laws for American Courts” [4] [5].
3. High‑profile exception: Oklahoma’s blocked amendment
Oklahoma voters approved a 2010 constitutional amendment explicitly banning Sharia and international law, but federal courts blocked its implementation on constitutional grounds and the ACLU and other groups have documented and litigated the prohibition as discriminatory [6] [2]. The Oklahoma example is frequently cited as proof that courts will scrutinize and sometimes enjoin these measures [6] [2].
4. Legal and civil‑liberties critiques
The American Civil Liberties Union and other advocates argue these laws single out Muslims and are constitutionally suspect; litigation has successfully stopped at least the Oklahoma measure from taking effect and produced rulings emphasizing First Amendment concerns [6] [2]. The Center for Public Integrity reporting traces copy‑cat drafting networks and political organizing behind many of these bills, underscoring political motives beyond neutral legal housekeeping [5].
5. Why “majority of states” claims are misleading
PolitiFact and other fact‑checks warn that claims such as “45 states banned Sharia” are gross exaggerations: while dozens of states considered or introduced measures restricting foreign law, few enacted broad, effective prohibitions that operationally ban Sharia in everyday court practice [3]. The distinction between a model “foreign‑law” statute being proposed and an enforceable Sharia ban is the core of the discrepancy [3].
6. Political resurgence and new federal proposals
Reporting shows the issue resurfaces periodically: in recent years elected officials and federal lawmakers have again proposed national or state measures to “ban Sharia,” and high‑profile politicians have voiced opposition to any place for Sharia in the U.S. [7] [8] [9]. Advocacy groups supporting model laws — and their opponents — continue to shape the legislative landscape [5].
7. Practical impact on courts and communities
Available analyses indicate that state courts already decline to apply foreign rules that conflict with U.S. public policy, and commentators argue existing safeguards limit any real risk of courts enforcing religious law that contradicts constitutional rights; opponents say the statutes nonetheless stigmatize Muslim communities and invite litigation [1] [2] [4]. Local political dynamics and activist networks often drive bills more than documented legal need [5].
8. How to read future claims
Given past patterns — copy‑cat bills, litigation, and fact‑check pushback — verify any headline claiming a state “banned Sharia” by checking the exact statutory or constitutional text, whether the law mentions “Sharia,” whether it targets foreign law broadly, and whether courts have upheld or blocked the law [1] [2] [3]. Also consider the source of model language; reporting shows a small number of organizations have promoted similar bills across multiple states [5].
Limitations and next steps: available sources do not provide a contemporaneous, state‑by‑state validated list with current legal status for each measure — the sources above summarize prominent cases, model statutes, and critiques but do not replace a compiled legal registry. If you want, I can assemble a table summarizing each listed state’s statute or amendment language and any known court rulings using the sources you prefer.