Have any US state laws explicitly allowed religious law like sharia to be applied in civil matters?
Executive summary
No U.S. state law explicitly requires courts to apply Sharia law as a binding legal system; instead, American courts sometimes enforce private agreements or recognize foreign legal acts (including those based on Islamic law) when they do not conflict with U.S. law (see [3], p1_s7). Dozens of states considered or passed “anti‑Sharia” or foreign‑law restrictions in the 2000s–2010s, and courts blocked at least one high‑profile ban (Oklahoma) as unconstitutional [1] [2].
1. What “applying Sharia” actually looks like in U.S. courts
U.S. courts do not set up state‑run Sharia courts; what appears in the record are private contracts, mediations, arbitration panels or recognition of foreign acts — all governed by American procedural and substantive law. Courts have treated religious arbitration and foreign marriages or wills as private legal acts that can be enforced so long as they don’t violate public policy or federal/state law [3] [2].
2. Laws that tried to block “Sharia” were often broader restrictions on foreign or religious law
Beginning in the late 2000s many state legislatures considered measures aimed at preventing courts from applying “foreign law,” a label often used politically to mean Islamic law. Those measures varied; some were framed narrowly, others were sweeping, but their text frequently targeted foreign or religious law rather than creating any statutory path for courts to adopt Sharia [2] [4].
3. Courts have checked state bans where they singled out Islam
Federal courts enjoined and struck down at least one major state constitutional amendment that singled out Sharia or international law (the Oklahoma measure), finding the language likely violated the Establishment Clause because it discriminated against Islam [1]. Legal scholars also note that federal law — for example the Federal Arbitration Act — permits religious arbitration results to receive enforcement, limiting state efforts to categorically ban “religious law” [5].
4. Practical avenues where Islamic law affects outcomes are private, not statutory
Reporting and legal analysis show the practical influence of Islamic legal norms in the U.S. happens through voluntary mechanisms: Muslim arbitration panels, contractual choice of law clauses, or recognizing foreign marriages or inheritance in probate — mechanisms shared by other religious communities such as Jewish batei din. These are enforceable only within the framework of U.S. law and can’t override fundamental statutory rights [2] [3].
5. Misleading claims and the political context
Claims that a majority of states “banned Sharia law” are inaccurate or exaggerated; fact‑checks and historians say many state bills were framed broadly and some enacted text targeted “foreign law,” but that does not equate to state authorization of Sharia nor to widespread state courts enforcing it as a parallel legal system [4] [2]. Advocacy campaigns on both sides have pushed politically charged messaging: anti‑Sharia activists advanced model bills in many legislatures, and civil‑rights groups and constitutional scholars warned such bans could discriminate and have unintended legal consequences [2] [1].
6. Recent political moves and rhetoric — law versus publicity
State executives and legislators continue to use “Sharia” as a political issue. For example, Texas enacted measures against alleged “Sharia compounds” and officials have called for investigations of so‑called Sharia courts despite reporting that no formal Sharia courts exist — only voluntary mediation panels comparable to other faith‑based arbitration services [6] [7]. Journalistic reporting and legal scholars stress the difference between publicity and legally enforceable change [7] [2].
7. What this means for civil matters in practice
Available sources show U.S. civil law allows enforcement of private agreements that reference religious law and acceptance of foreign legal facts (marriages, arbitrations, wills) but bars any private or public legal regime from superseding constitutional protections or statutory rights; when state measures single out Islam they face constitutional challenge [3] [1]. The result is a narrow, case‑by‑case presence of religious law via private choice, not statutory adoption of Sharia.
Limitations and unresolved points: sources here do not provide a comprehensive list of every state statute ever proposed or passed after 2025, nor do they catalog every court ruling applying foreign‑law principles; for details on specific state texts or post‑2025 litigation, available sources do not mention those items and further primary legal research would be required (not found in current reporting).