Which U.S. states still have anti-sharia laws on the books as of 2025?
Executive summary
As of the materials in the provided reporting, U.S. states have a patchwork of “foreign law” or so‑called anti‑Sharia measures that were passed in roughly eight states in the early 2010s and many more were proposed later; critics say the laws follow a model drafted by American Laws for American Courts and are driven by anti‑Muslim activists [1] [2]. Legal challenges have blocked at least some state bans (notably Oklahoma), and advocacy groups warn the measures can unintentionally affect ordinary contracts and religious arbitrations [3] [4] [2].
1. How many states enacted anti‑Sharia style bans — the short answer
Academic surveys and contemporaneous reporting count about eight states that ultimately enacted bans broadly described as “foreign law” or anti‑Sharia measures during the first wave of activity; scholars working on the phenomenon identify eight states as having successful measures by mid‑2010s [1]. Available sources do not list a definitive, up‑to‑the‑minute roster of which specific states still have such laws on the books as of 2025.
2. Where these laws came from — one template, many copies
Scholars and watchdogs trace much of the state‑level activity to a model bill circulated by American Laws for American Courts (ALAC) and its author David Yerushalmi; the model and affiliated campaign supplied language and a legal theory that state lawmakers adapted in many legislatures [2]. The Center for American Progress and other commentators describe the template as intentionally stigmatizing and note that ALAC’s draft even contemplated criminalizing “adherence to Sharia” in extreme form, which critics call Islamophobic [2].
3. The legal and practical criticisms — why civil‑rights groups object
Civil‑liberties and legal groups warned early that anti‑Sharia or foreign‑law bans are redundant and legally problematic: the U.S. constitution and existing conflict‑of‑laws doctrine already prevent the enforcement of foreign rules that contradict constitutional rights, and bans can unintentionally invalidate routine religious arbitrations or contracts [4] [2]. The Brennan Center and the American Bar Association expressed concern that blanket prohibitions could unsettle prenuptial agreements, arbitration awards, and interfaith practices that rely on non‑secular norms [4] [2].
4. Courts have pushed back — an important precedent
Federal courts have blocked at least one high‑profile state constitutional amendment that singled out Sharia and international law. A federal appeals court upheld a ruling blocking Oklahoma’s measure on the ground that singling out Islam likely violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause [3]. That decision demonstrates a constitutional limit on state measures that explicitly target a single religion [3].
5. How activists and lawmakers framed the reforms
Supporters of the measures framed them as defensive: protecting state law from foreign legal systems and preserving American constitutional values. Opponents, including some religious minority groups, argued the bills were redundant and fed anti‑Muslim sentiment; Jewish organizations warned that bans targeting “Sharia” could also affect Jewish and other religious arbitration practices [2] [4]. Reporting notes that groups such as ACT for America and others organized and pushed the public debate that led to legislative proposals [2].
6. Numbers versus names — the reporting gap
Scholarly work and legal commentary repeatedly reference “about eight” successful bans and “dozens” of attempts, but the provided sources do not supply a current list by state for 2025 [1] [5]. State‑by‑state status can change through litigation, new legislation, or repeal; therefore, the exact set of statutes still enforceable in 2025 is not specified in the supplied reporting. Available sources do not mention a consolidated 2025 inventory of which states still have enforceable anti‑Sharia or foreign‑law bans.
7. What to watch next
Watch for three dynamics: new federal or state bills re‑emerging that borrow ALAC language [2] [6], continued litigation testing constitutionality [3], and advocacy groups updating databases that track anti‑Muslim bills and their sponsors [7]. Those tracking should combine legal rulings with legislative updates because a law on the books may be enjoined or effectively dead pending court outcomes [3].
Limitations: this analysis relies solely on the materials you supplied and their snapshots of academic, advocacy, and legal coverage; those sources document the origins, critics, and some court responses but do not provide a definitive, current 2025 list of states that still have enforceable anti‑Sharia laws [1] [2] [3].