Which states considered but rejected anti-sharia proposals and what were the reasons?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Several states proposed anti‑Sharia or foreign‑law bans that ultimately failed in legislatures or were struck down by courts; notable examples include Idaho, where a bill failed repeatedly after 2016, and Oklahoma, where a voter‑backed constitutional amendment was blocked by federal courts for violating the First Amendment and lacking any demonstrated problem to solve [1] [2] [3]. Rejections rested on a mix of constitutional rulings, legal‑community opposition, civil‑liberties challenges, and acknowledgment by some lawmakers that no actual “Sharia threat” existed [3] [4] [5].
1. Idaho’s legislative defeats: political momentum fizzled after 2016
Idaho provides a clear example of a state that considered anti‑Sharia legislation and then repeatedly failed to enact it: an anti‑Sharia bill introduced in 2016 did not pass, and the sponsor who reintroduced similar measures in subsequent sessions remained unsuccessful, indicating that legislative support dwindled after initial attempts [1]. Reporting by the Center for Public Integrity traced that failure to sustained local opposition and to the fact that the bill’s author did not secure the votes needed in later sessions, showing how a copy‑paste national model can stumble when confronted with local politics [1].
2. Oklahoma’s voter amendment—passed but legally rejected for targeting Islam
Oklahoma’s “Save Our State” constitutional amendment did win a ballot majority but was later blocked by federal courts; the appellate court concluded the amendment singled out Islam for unfavorable treatment and likely violated the Establishment Clause, noting that sponsors could not identify any real problem the amendment would remedy [2] [3]. The ACLU highlighted that sponsors admitted there were no instances of a Sharia threat in Oklahoma even as the amendment was marketed to voters, and courts emphasized that such purposive targeting of a religion contravenes constitutional protections [2] [4].
3. Legal and professional opposition: why many proposals never got traction
National legal organizations and civil‑liberties groups argued against anti‑Sharia bills on constitutional and practical grounds: the American Bar Association and the ACLU warned that bans were unnecessary because existing law already prevents foreign or religious rules that conflict with U.S. policy or anti‑discrimination norms, while courts repeatedly found that the purported “threat” motivating the bills was a myth [6] [5] [3]. These institutional critiques undercut legislative momentum by framing the measures as redundant at best and discriminatory at worst, a message that resonated with judges and some lawmakers [4] [5].
4. The model‑bill problem and the politics of rejection
Many anti‑Sharia proposals across states traced back to a few activist networks and model texts—most prominently American Laws for American Courts (ALAC) and allied groups—making them vulnerable to counter‑campaigns that exposed the bills’ origins and intent [5] [1]. Opponents successfully used that provenance to argue these bills were not neutral safeguards but politically motivated efforts to stigmatize Muslims; in Idaho and elsewhere, that political framing helped persuade legislators and local stakeholders to reject or resist the measures [1] [7].
5. Courts, civil‑rights litigators, and the practical reality test
Where anti‑Sharia measures reached judicial review, courts demanded a factual demonstration of harm and often found none, treating the laws as targeting a religion rather than solving a demonstrated legal problem [3]. The ACLU and SPLC documented cases and litigation strategies that led to injunctions or reversals, reinforcing the message that constitutional limits—not just political debate—would block discriminatory language and blunt the movement’s legislative ambitions [2] [7].
Conclusion: why some states considered but ultimately rejected anti‑Sharia proposals
The combination of constitutional vulnerability (Establishment and Free Exercise concerns), effective legal and civil‑society pushback, exposure of national model‑bill origins, and the judiciary’s insistence on a real, demonstrable problem explains why several states considered but rejected anti‑Sharia measures—Idaho’s repeated legislative failures and Oklahoma’s judicial reversal are emblematic of that dynamic [1] [2] [3] [5]. Reporting shows rejection was less about indifference and more about legal principle, political calculation, and the inability of sponsors to substantiate the policy rationale behind the bills [3] [4].