WHAT STATES IN THE UNITED STATES HAVE PASSED SHARIA LAW
Executive summary
No U.S. state has “passed Sharia law” as a parallel legal system; instead, more than a dozen states have enacted laws or ballot measures intended to block courts from applying “Sharia,” “foreign,” or “international” law — measures that courts and legal experts have repeatedly said are unnecessary and sometimes unconstitutional [1] [2]. Recent political actions — including Texas investigations and a new Texas statute referenced by Governor Abbott — focus on policing imagined “Sharia courts,” though reporting and legal scholarship find no evidence of state-sanctioned Sharia courts in the United States [3] [4].
1. Anti‑Sharia laws are what passed, not “Sharia law” itself
Beginning around 2009–2010, state legislatures and voters pushed measures aimed at barring courts from “considering” Sharia, “foreign,” or “international” law. Multiple sources note that dozens of states introduced such bills and that at least 14 states enacted versions of anti‑Sharia or foreign‑law bans, rather than creating any new Islamic legal system in the U.S. [1] [5]. The measures are typically framed as preemptive protections, not adoptions of Sharia as the state’s law [2] [5].
2. Courts and legal experts reject the premise that the bans were needed
Federal judges have blocked or struck down some of these bans as unconstitutional; for example, Oklahoma’s 2010 ballot amendment was enjoined by a federal judge who found the ban could harm Muslims and was discriminatory [2]. The American Bar Association and civil‑liberties groups have criticized the bans as redundant or unconstitutional because existing arbitration and contract law already allow religious tribunals to operate voluntarily and for their judgments to be enforced under the Federal Arbitration Act [2] [1].
3. Practical reality: religious arbitration exists, but not state‑run Sharia courts
Muslim mediation panels, Jewish beth dins and Christian arbitration services operate in the U.S. under the same voluntary arbitration framework; those private tribunals submit decisions that can be enforced by civil courts when parties consent — a practice rooted in the 1925 Federal Arbitration Act [2] [3]. Reporting and fact‑checks emphasize that there are no communities in which Sharia “trumps” U.S. law and no state has adopted Sharia as the governing legal code [1] [5].
4. Political context: anti‑Sharia campaigns and their architects
The movement to ban Sharia in state law had organized architects and templates. Groups like American Laws for American Courts (ALAC) and figures such as David Yerushalmi authored model anti‑Sharia bills that were distributed nationally; critics argue those drafts were designed to stoke fear of Muslims and were linked to Islamophobic campaigns [6]. Journalistic analysis says the mid‑2010s wave of bills was motivated in part by political theatre and nativist anxieties, not by examples of Sharia supplanting U.S. law [2] [3].
5. Recent flare‑ups: Texas and the language of “Sharia courts”
In late 2025, Texas Governor Greg Abbott called for investigations into alleged “Sharia courts,” and the Texas governor’s office has defended state actions such as laws addressing so‑called “Sharia compounds” [3] [4]. Reporting by Al Jazeera and other outlets says there is no evidence of formal Sharia courts in Texas; the references instead point to voluntary mediation panels and political messaging that can amplify Islamophobia [3].
6. Legal and social consequences the sources flag
Legal analysts warn the bans can have unintended effects: they may interfere with enforceable arbitration agreements, prenuptial contracts, and interstate judgments, and they risk discriminating against religious minorities by singling out Islamic practices [2] [6]. Civil liberties groups like the ACLU have litigated against such measures, arguing they violate church‑state separation and equal‑protection principles [7].
7. Competing viewpoints and limitations of available sources
Sources converge that anti‑Sharia measures were widespread and often symbolic [5] [1]. Critics (ACLU, academic commentators) call the campaigns discriminatory and legally unnecessary [7] [6]. Proponents, including some state officials, argue the measures protect citizens from parallel legal systems and preserve public order; Texas gubernatorial materials assert such laws preserve religious freedom while preventing coercive Sharia enclaves [4]. Available sources do not mention any U.S. state that has enacted laws establishing Sharia as state law or creating state‑sanctioned Sharia courts.
Bottom line: the factual record in the supplied reporting shows states passed anti‑Sharia or foreign‑law prohibitions — measures challenged in court and criticized by legal scholars — but no state has “passed Sharia law” or adopted Sharia as its legal system [1] [2] [7].