Which states have passed anti-sharia bills versus court rulings striking them down?
Executive summary
Several states have enacted laws or amendments that bar courts from applying “Sharia” or broader “foreign/international” law; prominent examples cited in reporting include Alabama, Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana, North Carolina, South Dakota and Tennessee [1]. Courts and civil‑rights groups have repeatedly challenged such measures; federal courts have struck down or enjoined at least the Oklahoma constitutional amendment and other implementations as unconstitutional or discriminatory, according to the ACLU and press coverage [2] [3].
1. What these “anti‑Sharia” laws actually say — and who wrote them
Most state measures don’t single out Islamic scripture by legal text but instead prohibit courts from applying “foreign,” “international” or “religious” law; many followed a common template created by American Laws for American Courts (ALAC), a model promulgated by David Yerushalmi and allied groups [4] [5]. Reporting and advocacy groups trace the language and spread of these laws to that network; critics say the template was designed to stigmatize Muslims and to be politically useful across state legislatures [4] [5].
2. Which states passed measures (summary of reporting)
Journalistic and reference reporting lists several states that passed bans or ballot measures: Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana, North Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee and Alabama are noted examples of states that “banned Sharia” or passed foreign‑law prohibitions as of earlier coverage [1] [6]. Independent projects tracking anti‑Muslim legislation document dozens of state bills introduced over time and identify sponsors and patterns across statehouses [7] [8].
3. Courts have intervened — notable rulings and legal challenges
Civil‑liberties organizations say courts have repeatedly found constitutional problems with these bans. The ACLU recounts litigation that led to a federal appeals court upholding a ruling blocking Oklahoma’s constitutional amendment that explicitly forbade courts from considering Sharia and international law [2] [3]. The ACLU frames these rulings as protecting religious freedom and church‑state separation and calls many such state bans discriminatory and legally flawed [3] [8].
4. Legal reasoning cited by opponents and courts
Opponents and litigants argue bans single out a faith for disfavored treatment and undermine courts’ ability to resolve private disputes involving foreign law or international obligations; the ACLU and court orders emphasize First Amendment establishment‑clause and equal‑protection concerns and practical harms to matters like contracts, international marriages and adoptions [3] [8]. Public‑interest reporting notes that the template text can void judicial rulings if they are deemed to rely on foreign law inconsistent with constitutional guarantees [5] [9].
5. Political motives and public messaging around the laws
Reporting highlights active political marketing: proponents frame measures as defending constitutional rights and public policy, while critics see them as political theatre that exploits fear of Muslims. Coverage links the movement’s leadership and supporters to Tea Party‑era networks, ACT! for America and conservative policy shops who pushed model language into many states [1] [5]. Advocacy groups describe the measures as part of a campaign to “other” Muslims rather than to address real legal problems [4] [8].
6. Contemporary resurgence at federal and state levels (2025 examples)
In 2025, lawmakers renewed the push: members of Congress introduced a “No Shari’a Act” in the House and Senate, and state legislators introduced similar bills [10] [9] [11]. State executives have also signed related statutes; for example, Texas announced a 2025 law targeting so‑called “Sharia compounds” [12]. Civil‑liberties groups and Muslim‑advocacy groups responded by labeling these efforts unconstitutional or redundant, warning of discrimination [13] [8].
7. Consequences and open questions the sources leave unanswered
The provided reporting documents both the spread of template bills and courtroom pushback, but available sources do not mention a comprehensive, up‑to‑date, state‑by‑state accounting of which laws remain fully enforceable today and which have been invalidated in every instance; they also do not provide exhaustive citations of every court decision across all states [1] [8]. Tracking enforcement effects—such as impacts on contracts, foreign investment, or family‑law cases—requires court records and longitudinal studies not included in the cited sources [4] [3].
8. Bottom line for readers
Anti‑Sharia legislation in the U.S. has been a coordinated, copy‑paste phenomenon driven by a model bill and sympathetic lawmakers [5]. Several states enacted bans, but civil‑rights litigants have successfully challenged at least some measures — notably Oklahoma’s amendment — on constitutional grounds, and national advocacy groups continue to argue that the laws are discriminatory and legally unsound [2] [3]. The debate is political as much as legal: supporters claim protection of constitutional rights; opponents call the measures Islamophobic and largely unnecessary [1] [8].