Which states have enacted anti-sharia legislation and what do those laws prohibit?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
State-level "anti‑Sharia" measures are a patchwork: dozens of bills were introduced nationwide and a significant number of states passed laws or ballot measures prohibiting courts from applying "Sharia" or broadly defined "foreign" or "religious" law, but the count and scope vary by source and many measures have been narrowed, vetoed, or struck down in court [1] [2] [3]. Commonly these laws forbid state courts from considering foreign, international or religious law in ways perceived to conflict with state constitutions; critics and civil‑rights groups say the statutes are discriminatory, unnecessary, and risk collateral harms to contracts, adoptions and religious arbitration [4] [5] [3].
1. What the laws actually do — a short taxonomy
Most anti‑Sharia statutes do not criminalize private religious belief but aim to prevent state courts from applying foreign, international or "religious" law as a basis for decisions, especially in family and contract disputes; for example, the North Carolina law bars state judges from applying "foreign law" in family law cases and explicitly targets the interpretation of contracts under foreign legal systems [6]. Variants include state constitutional amendments that single out "Sharia" by name, statutory bans on using foreign or religious law in courts, and model legislation—known as the "American Laws for American Courts" template—that defines foreign or religious law in ways intended to block its use in state judicial decisions [1] [5] [4].
2. Where these laws have passed or been proposed — snapshots and disputes over counting
Reporting and advocacy groups offer different totals: some sources cite roughly 15–16 states that adopted bans by the mid‑2010s [6] [2], while watchdog reporting credits organizations advocating the model legislation with wins in "over 20 states" and dozens of copycat bills [1]. Specific, widely reported examples include Alabama — where voters approved a constitutional amendment in 2014 described as banning Sharia [5] — North Carolina’s 2013 Family, Faith and Freedom Protection Act that restricts judges from applying foreign law in family cases [6], and Oklahoma’s 2010 ballot amendment that sought to prohibit courts from considering Sharia and international law but was blocked by federal courts as discriminatory [3]. Missouri passed a foreign‑law ban in 2013 that the governor vetoed over concerns about international adoptions [5].
3. Who promoted the laws and the legislative mechanics
A network of national groups and a model bill played outsized roles: the "American Laws for American Courts" template, its author and allied organizations were central to spreading copycat bills across statehouses, and advocacy groups like ACT for America publicly celebrated numerous state "wins" tied to those efforts [1]. Analysts and civil‑rights groups argue the templates were intentionally broad, sometimes proposing criminal penalties in earlier drafts, and that the political momentum was built as part of a broader anti‑Muslim legislative push documented by trackers such as the Othering & Belonging Institute [4] [7] [1].
4. Legal and practical consequences identified by critics and courts
Legal and civil‑liberties groups warned that bans could invalidate prenuptial agreements, foreign adoptions and recognition of foreign judgments or arbitrations, and might single out Islam in violation of the First Amendment; courts blocked at least one high‑profile measure in Oklahoma on Establishment Clause grounds and the Brennan Center and ACLU criticized the bans as unnecessary and constitutionally problematic [5] [3]. Jewish and other religious groups also opposed some bills for infringing on religious arbitration and communal dispute resolution rights, underscoring that the legislation’s effects reach beyond Muslim communities [4].
5. The practical reality today — contested, narrowing, litigated
The landscape remains contested: some states enacted bills that were later limited in scope, governors vetoed others, and several measures faced successful constitutional challenges; contemporaneous trackers and investigative reporting continue to document introductions of new anti‑Muslim bills even as advocates for civil liberties push back in courts and legislatures [1] [7] [3]. Precise state‑by‑state status requires consulting updated legal trackers because reporting sources differ on counts and because the laws’ language and enforcement posture vary widely [7] [1].