Which U.S. states have successfully enacted anti‑Sharia or foreign‑law restrictions and what happened to those laws in court?
Executive summary
Anti‑Sharia and “foreign‑law” restrictions have been proposed in roughly two dozen states; a handful of states enacted versions of the American Laws for American Courts (ALAC) model and related measures, but key efforts—most notably Oklahoma’s 2010 constitutional amendment—were blocked in federal court and the broader movement has produced few lasting, enforceable changes [1] [2] [3]. Courts and legal organizations including the American Bar Association and civil‑rights groups have repeatedly found these measures unnecessary, constitutionally problematic, or effectively redundant with existing public‑policy doctrines [4] [3] [5].
1. The legislative sweep: where bans were passed and where they were only proposed
State legislatures and voters pushed varieties of anti‑Sharia or foreign‑law restrictions in many jurisdictions; activists tracking the movement count roughly two dozen states that considered such measures, with several passing statutes modeled on the ALAC template and others advancing ballot amendments or bills that explicitly mentioned “Sharia” [1] [2] [6]. The Center for Public Integrity and related reporting identify that six states—Arkansas, Florida, Kansas, Louisiana, North Carolina and Tennessee—passed both ALAC‑style anti‑foreign‑law provisions and companion “anti‑terrorism” measures, though the actual legal impact of those enactments has been limited [2].
2. Oklahoma: the high‑profile ballot win that courts erased
Oklahoma’s 2010 “Save Our State” constitutional amendment—originally naming Sharia and later expanded to include “foreign” and “international” law—won popular approval but was enjoined by a federal district court and that injunction was unanimously upheld by a federal appeals court, which concluded the language was discriminatory and not aimed at solving an actual legal problem [7] [3] [5]. The appeals court noted proponents could not identify any instance where Oklahoma courts had applied Sharia in a way that caused harm, and the ruling emphasized the amendment’s potential to victimize Muslims and conflict with constitutional protections [3].
3. Copy‑paste model legislation and the men behind it
Much of the wave of statutes used language drafted by David Yerushalmi and allied groups under the American Laws for American Courts project; supporters say the model is religion‑neutral and intended to ensure state public policy prevails, while critics and watchdogs characterize it as an organizing tool for anti‑Muslim activists and point to Yerushalmi’s explicit targeting of Sharia [2] [6]. Civil‑liberties and legal organizations warn that the template’s broad prohibitions are unnecessary because courts already refuse to enforce foreign or religious rules that contradict constitutional guarantees such as gender equality [4] [7].
4. Legal reasoning: why courts and bar groups pushed back
Federal courts and bar associations rested objections on constitutional and statutory grounds: plaintiffs argued and courts agreed that the measures singled out a religion, risked violating the Free Exercise Clause, and were redundant because American courts already apply a public‑policy exception to reject foreign or religious rules incompatible with U.S. law [3] [4] [5]. The American Bar Association has explicitly opposed blanket prohibitions on religious legal doctrines as unnecessary, and the Brennan Center warned of harms such as invalidating religious arbitration or prenuptial agreements when language is overbroad [4] [7].
5. Outcomes beyond Oklahoma: limited practical impact and reversals
While several states enacted ALAC‑style laws, reporting finds the measures have had little concrete legal effect; some state court or appellate decisions that briefly suggested concern about applying foreign or religious norms were quickly reversed or clarified, and plaintiffs successfully challenged discriminatory provisions in federal court when they could show stigmatization or lack of a legitimate state interest [2] [4]. The movement’s real legacy, many observers argue, has been political signaling and stigmatization rather than producing durable changes in judicial practice [2] [6].
6. Competing narratives and reporting limits
Advocates for the laws maintain they protect constitutional rights and public policy from foreign intrusion, while critics — including the SPLC, ACLU, ABA and academic commentators — document that the threat was largely theoretical, the model text targeted Muslims, and courts have repeatedly blocked or narrowed these laws [4] [5] [2]. Reporting assembled here documents numerous legislative attempts and the key legal defeat in Oklahoma, but available sources do not provide a comprehensive state‑by‑state list of every enacted statute’s post‑enactment litigation outcome; where specific states beyond Oklahoma saw dispositive federal or state court invalidations, those cases are detailed in the cited coverage [2] [3].