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.
What states ban sharia law
Executive summary
Many U.S. states have considered or enacted laws that curtail courts’ use of foreign or religious law, and a subset of measures explicitly targeted “Sharia.” Wikipedia’s listing names Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana, South Dakota, Tennessee, North Carolina and Alabama as states that have “banned Sharia” [1], while advocacy groups like the ACLU and analysts note broader waves of state proposals and legal challenges [2] [3]. Coverage and terminology vary: some laws are framed as bans on “foreign law,” others name “Sharia” specifically, and courts have at times blocked or struck down such measures [1] [3].
1. Laws on paper vs. laws in practice — “banned Sharia” is not a single uniform rule
Several different legislative approaches have been used: state statutes, constitutional amendments, ballot measures, or more narrowly focused bills. Wikipedia’s compilation lists seven states that “have ‘banned sharia’,” meaning they passed foreign‑law bans that critics described as targeting Sharia (Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana, South Dakota, Tennessee, North Carolina, and Alabama) [1]. But advocacy groups and legal analysts emphasize that many state proposals instead used neutral language about “foreign” or “international” law rather than singling out Islam — and that the practical effect depends on statutory text and court interpretation [2] [4].
2. Legal pushback and constitutional concerns
Courts and civil‑liberties groups have challenged or blocked several of these measures. The ACLU documented the Oklahoma constitutional amendment and other efforts as discriminatory, and reported that courts have found constitutional problems with such bans, including preliminary injunctions and blocking rulings [2] [3]. Wikipedia’s coverage notes that an Oklahoma ballot measure approved by voters was later enjoined and found potentially harmful to Muslims, illustrating the judicial role in policing state action that targets religion [1].
3. Who objects — civil‑liberties, religious‑minority, and business groups
Opponents include the ACLU and Muslim‑rights organizations, which argue that singling out Sharia stigmatizes Muslim citizens and is unnecessary because U.S. law already supersedes any religious rule that conflicts with constitutional or statutory rights [2] [1]. Jewish groups and analysts have warned that bans on “religious law” can also affect Orthodox Jewish practices and arbitration based on halakha, meaning the measures can have unintended consequences for other faith communities [4].
4. Supporters’ arguments and recent political momentum
Proponents frame these measures as preserving the supremacy of U.S. and state constitutions and protecting citizens from foreign legal systems. Recent political actors and lawmakers have renewed calls for bans — for example, state action in Texas to ban “Sharia compounds” was touted by Governor Abbott’s office as protecting Texans and preserving religious freedom, and in 2025 several federal lawmakers proposed or promoted national‑level “No Sharia” bills [5] [6] [7] [8]. Reporting shows a resurgence of political rhetoric about Sharia among some Republican officials in 2025 [9] [10].
5. How many states actually prohibit “foreign law” or its use in courts?
Estimates vary by source and by the legal language counted. An advocacy resource notes that ten states prohibit use of foreign law in state courts as a way of blocking Sharia without naming it explicitly [4]. PolitiFact cautioned that claims asserting a majority of states “banned Sharia” are exaggerations and that many laws do not explicitly name Sharia even if critics view them as targeting it [11]. Wikipedia also documents widespread consideration of such measures in many states during 2010–2011 but does not support a single consensus count beyond its listed examples [1].
6. Practical effects on courts, contracts and community life
Analysts warn that bans on foreign or religious law can interfere with routine civil matters where parties rely on foreign legal principles or religious arbitration (e.g., prenuptial agreements, commercial contracts, religious divorces). ING and Jewish groups argue such bans could harm international commerce and minority religious practices that use religious law within private arbitration, highlighting economic and communal downsides [4].
7. What reporting does not settle
Available sources do not provide a definitive, current catalog listing every state law in force as of today; counting depends on definitions (explicit “Sharia” bans vs. foreign‑law restrictions) and on subsequent judicial rulings that may have enjoined or narrowed laws (not found in current reporting) [1] [11] [4]. For a precise, up‑to‑date state‑by‑state inventory and the current judicial status of each law, consult primary state statutes and recent court opinions (not found in current reporting).
8. Bottom line for readers
State action has ranged from symbolic declarations to enforceable statutes, with critics arguing these measures are discriminatory and courts sometimes curtailing them; supporters argue they protect constitutional supremacy and public order [2] [3] [5]. Because wording, legal effect, and judicial outcomes differ by state, simple headlines that “X states banned Sharia” overstate a complex legal landscape and mix legislative intent with on‑the‑ground enforceability [1] [11].