Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Which U.S. states saw the most legislative battles over anti-Sharia bills between 2010 and 2017?
Executive Summary
Between 2010 and 2017, anti-Sharia or “anti-foreign law” bills generated widespread legislative activity across the United States, with reporting pointing to roughly 200–230 bills introduced in about 39–43 states and several states enacting or attempting enactments. Oklahoma, Texas, Arkansas, Tennessee, and Louisiana repeatedly appear in the record as focal points of the most visible legislative fights, though counts and emphases differ across reports [1] [2] [3].
1. The headline numbers that journalists repeat — but they don’t all agree
Multiple authoritative analyses converge on the claim that more than two hundred anti-Sharia / anti-foreign-law bills were filed in state legislatures during the 2010–2017 window, but they report different totals and state counts. One 2018 summary records 201 bills introduced across 43 states, noting 2017 saw activity in 14 states and enactments in Texas and Arkansas [1]. A 2019 submission to the UN and an academic briefing report 223 bills in 43 states or 194–223 bills in 39–43 states, with 20 or 18 enacted depending on the counting method [4] [5] [2]. A separate review synthesizes “over 230” anti-Muslim bills since 2010, again stressing that many bills are framed as anti-foreign-law rather than explicitly naming Sharia [6]. These differences reflect variations in definitions (explicit “Sharia” vs. broader “foreign law” language), inclusion of multiple bill drafts across years, and cut-off dates used by each tracker. The core fact supported by all sources is substantial and geographically widespread legislative activity rather than a narrow set of states.
2. Which states show up repeatedly as battlegrounds?
Across the available analyses, Oklahoma surfaces repeatedly as an early and prominent battleground, having passed a 2010 “Save Our State” amendment that federal courts later blocked, and receiving attention as an archetypal example of the legal and constitutional backlash such measures face [3] [2]. Texas and Arkansas are identified in contemporary reporting as states that enacted anti-foreign-law measures in 2017, marking them as late-period enactments during the examined span [1]. Tennessee and Louisiana are cited as states that passed similar measures or saw concentrated activity, and commentators also single out states where bills were frequently introduced even if not enacted. The pattern in the documentation is diffuse but recurring: a handful of states produce high-profile voter initiatives, court cases, or enacted statutes (Oklahoma, Texas, Arkansas), while many other states serve as repeat sites of introduced bills and legislative debate [7] [3].
3. What drove the proliferation — and how the data reflect different explanations
All sources describe a campaign dynamic in which national activist groups and legal advocates promoted model language and coordinated state-level drafting, producing a wave of bills framed as preventing foreign law in state courts. Analyses name organizations and lawyers tied to this movement and identify model legislation as a vector for diffusion across states [1]. Reports submitted to international bodies frame these bills as part of a broader rise in Islamophobic policy initiatives between 2010 and 2017, linking the legislative activity to increases in anti-Muslim hate rhetoric and incidents captured by law-enforcement statistics [1] [4]. The differences in reported totals trace back to whether trackers count every introduced draft, only distinct legislative proposals, or only measures that explicitly invoked “Sharia,” underscoring how advocacy strategies that rebrand the same substantive aim (blocking consideration of foreign religious law) complicate straightforward enumeration [6].
4. Legal pushback and the significance of state-level enactments
Legal challenges and constitutional analysis are central to the story: where measures passed or were voter-approved, federal courts often intervened, as with Oklahoma’s amendment being struck down on constitutional grounds. Several reports emphasize that the U.S. Constitution and existing choice-of-law doctrines already limit the use of foreign or religious law in U.S. courts, which is why many legal experts, bar associations, and civil-rights groups condemned these bills as redundant and discriminatory [1] [2]. The record shows fewer permanent, enforceable enactments than the number of bills introduced, and that the political visibility of certain states stems as much from court fights and ballot-language campaigns as from statutory code entries. This dynamic explains why some states appear as battlegrounds even when enactments were later invalidated.
5. Assessment, remaining uncertainties, and what to watch next
The consolidated evidence shows widespread legislative battles across dozens of states, with Oklahoma, Texas, Arkansas, Tennessee, and Louisiana recurring as the most visible sites of conflict; however, precise rankings of “most” battles depend on definitional choices and dataset cut-offs. The trackers cited differ by several dozen bills and by whether they count measures through 2016 or 2017, producing legitimate variance in headline totals [1] [4] [6]. Important unanswered details include exact state-by-state tallies using a uniform definition of “anti-Sharia” versus “anti-foreign-law” bills and the number of distinct legislative sessions producing repeated introductions. For researchers or journalists asking “which states saw the most fights,” the best-supported conclusion is that a small group of states generated the most high-profile legal and political battles (Oklahoma, Texas, Arkansas, Tennessee, Louisiana), but the phenomenon was national in scope, reaching 39–43 states with over 190–230 bill introductions [1] [2].