Have any US city councils proposed ordinances based on Sharia principles?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
No credible reporting shows a U.S. city council formally proposing ordinances “based on Sharia principles”; fact‑checking outlets and legal analyses say American lawmaking remains within state and federal frameworks and that local officials cannot unilaterally impose foreign religious legal codes [1] [2] [3].
1. What the question really asks and what the record shows
The query seeks concrete instances of municipal governments drafting laws that derive from Islamic religious law; exhaustive public reporting and fact checks find no example of a U.S. city council enacting or publicly proposing civil or criminal ordinances explicitly grounded in Sharia as a legal system, and PolitiFact’s longstanding review concluded there are no U.S. towns or cities “under Sharia law” [2], while a recent fact check debunked claims that a newly elected mayor could “bring Sharia law to America,” noting local laws in New York are created by the state legislature and city council—not by a mayor’s unilateral decree [1].
2. Where the debate has actually played out: anti‑Sharia laws and rhetoric
The policymaking and political activity documented in the sources has largely moved in the opposite direction—legislators and governors have drafted and signed measures framed to block or regulate the influence of Sharia rather than to implement it; for example, Texas enacted House Bill 4211 amid controversy over a proposed Muslim‑led development and the governor described the measure as targeting so‑called “Sharia compounds” [4], while state and federal politicians have called for investigations and even proposed national bans or immigration restrictions tied to fears about Sharia [5] [6] [7].
3. Local flashpoints — controversy, not codified Sharia ordinances
High‑profile local incidents that fueled alarm—such as the proposed EPIC City development in Texas—triggered state executive action, congressional letters, and media narratives about Sharia rather than city councils passing Sharia‑based laws [4] [5]; civil‑rights groups countered those narratives, arguing the laws or orders cited do not actually create parallel religious courts or override U.S. law, and warned that rhetoric about “Sharia bans” can stigmatize Muslim communities [8].
4. Legal and comparative context: why municipal Sharia ordinances are implausible
U.S. law anchors municipal authority in state constitutions and statutes, and courts have resisted efforts to have state courts apply foreign religious laws where they conflict with constitutional rights; PolitiFact and scholarly explainers note that while religious arbitration and private religious practices exist, no municipality has succeeded in supplanting U.S. law with a theocratic code, and many state measures over the past decade have focused on preventing courts from enforcing foreign or religious laws in certain cases [2] [9] [3].
5. Where reporting is thin and why caution matters
The available sources document a great deal of political theater—ballot initiatives, state bans, congressional bills, and advocacy group statements—but they do not provide evidence of city councils drafting or proposing ordinances that explicitly state they are “based on Sharia principles,” and where claims arise they often originate in partisan messaging or mischaracterizations by elected officials and commentators [1] [4] [10]. This reporting gap means the correct, evidence‑based conclusion is negative: no documented city council proposals implementing Sharia law exist in the cited material, while much more evidence exists of anti‑Sharia measures and alarmist rhetoric [2] [9] [7].