Sharia law bans by state now cover more than a dozen jurisdictions, though nearly all of them are written in religion-neutral language that restricts “foreign law” generally rather than naming Islamic law directly. Oklahoma, Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana, South Dakota, and Tennessee were the early movers between 2010 and 2013, and additional states have added similar measures since. Bills have been introduced in at least 32 states since 2010.1Pew Research Center. State Legislation Restricting Use of Foreign or Religious Law For most people, the real-world effect shows up in family court — specifically in how judges treat Islamic marriage contracts and foreign custody arrangements.
Which States Have Foreign Law Restrictions
Oklahoma started the movement in November 2010, when voters approved State Question 755, the “Save Our State Amendment,” with about 70 percent of the vote. That measure named Sharia and international law explicitly.2Ballotpedia. Oklahoma State Question 755, International and Sharia Law Amendment (2010) It never took effect. A federal court blocked it within days.
Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana, South Dakota, and Tennessee passed their own statutes between 2010 and 2013 using broader language. None of them mentioned Sharia or any specific faith. Kansas placed its version in Chapter 60, Article 51 of its civil procedure code, framing the statute as a protection of constitutional rights rather than a limit on any religion.3Justia Law. Kansas Statutes Chapter 60 Article 51 – Application of Foreign Laws Louisiana declared that protecting citizens from foreign laws is a matter of state public policy. More states have followed, and similar bills continue to appear in state legislatures each session.
What the Statutes Actually Do
The wording varies, but the mechanics are similar. These laws direct state judges to refuse to enforce any foreign law, legal code, or system if applying it would violate rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution or the state constitution. They typically operate in two situations: enforcement of foreign court judgments and interpretation of private contracts that reference foreign or religious legal principles.
If a contract calls for disputes to be resolved under a foreign framework, the judge is supposed to compare the protections that framework offers against the protections available under state law. Where the foreign law would strip away rights a person would otherwise have, the judge sets it aside.
Here’s the wrinkle. American courts already had this authority before any of these statutes existed. The public policy exception is a long-established doctrine that lets judges refuse to apply foreign law when it clashes with fundamental domestic principles. Supporters of the bans have not pointed to a documented U.S. case where a court actually applied Sharia to override a citizen’s constitutional rights. Critics call the statutes a solution to a problem that wasn’t happening — with real costs for people whose legitimate contracts and family arrangements involve foreign legal elements.
Why Oklahoma’s Explicit Ban Was Struck Down
Muneer Awad, the executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Oklahoma, sued almost immediately after voters approved State Question 755. A federal district judge issued a preliminary injunction, finding that the state had “presented no evidence which would show the amendment is justified by any compelling interest or is narrowly tailored.”2Ballotpedia. Oklahoma State Question 755, International and Sharia Law Amendment (2010)
The Tenth Circuit upheld the injunction in January 2012, holding that the amendment likely violated both the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment by singling out one religion for negative treatment.4Justia Law. Awad v. Ziriax, et al, No. 10-6273 The amendment never went into force.
That outcome reshaped everything that followed. Every major foreign law ban enacted after 2012 avoids naming any specific religion or legal tradition, using phrases like “foreign law,” “foreign legal code,” or “legal system of another jurisdiction” instead.
Are the Neutral-Language Bans Safe From Challenge
No facially neutral foreign law ban has been struck down on constitutional grounds so far. That doesn’t mean the question is settled. A law that is neutral on its face but was motivated by anti-Muslim sentiment and disproportionately burdens Muslim Americans could still fail under the same First Amendment principles that took down Oklahoma’s version. The legislative record for many of these bills contains floor speeches and committee testimony focused almost entirely on Sharia, which a court reviewing a challenge would be free to examine. The absence of a definitive ruling means one well-positioned lawsuit could reshape the landscape.
How the Bans Affect Muslim Marriage Contracts
The most concrete impact has been on Muslim Americans in family court. Islamic marriages commonly include a mahr agreement — a financial obligation from the husband to the wife, often payable upon divorce. American courts have struggled to classify these agreements even without foreign law bans on the books, sometimes treating them as prenuptial agreements, sometimes as ordinary contracts, and sometimes declining to enforce them at all.
Foreign law bans compound the problem. In one widely cited example, a Kansas court declined to enforce a mahr valued at roughly $677,000 in gold coins shortly after Kansas enacted its foreign law restriction. The court reasoned that enforcing the agreement would essentially create a remedy under a legal code potentially at odds with Kansas law. The wife lost the financial protection she had bargained for at the time of marriage.
In states without such bans, and even in states with them where the analysis stays grounded in contract law, courts that do enforce mahr agreements apply standard contract principles: Did both parties enter voluntarily? Are the terms clear enough to enforce? Would enforcement violate public policy?
Child custody works differently. Every state applies some version of the “best interests of the child” standard, and any custody arrangement rooted in a foreign or religious tradition gets measured against that standard. A religious custody agreement that doesn’t account for the child’s emotional well-being, stability, or preference will be set aside regardless of whether a foreign law ban is on the books.
Religious Arbitration Still Works
Foreign law bans do not eliminate the role of religious legal principles in private dispute resolution. The Federal Arbitration Act, codified in Title 9 of the United States Code, lets parties agree in writing to resolve disputes through private arbitration rather than in court.5Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 9 U.S.C. Chapter 1 – General Provisions That framework is broad enough to cover religious tribunals. Jewish communities have long used the Beth Din for arbitration. Muslim communities use Sharia councils for similar purposes.
The key distinction: a court enforcing a religious arbitration award is not applying religious law. It is enforcing a private contract between two people who agreed to have their dispute resolved by a particular arbitrator. The religious character of the tribunal is legally irrelevant to the enforcement question. It’s the same framework that lets parties choose a retired judge, an industry expert, or a religious scholar to hear their case.
A court that receives an arbitration agreement covered by the FAA must stay any pending litigation and allow the arbitration to proceed on its agreed terms. The protection applies only when the original agreement was genuinely voluntary. An arbitration clause signed under duress or without meaningful consent can be challenged like any other contract.
When a Court Can Throw Out a Religious Arbitration Award
Under 9 U.S.C. § 10, a court can vacate an arbitration award if:
- The award was obtained through corruption or fraud.
- The arbitrator showed evident partiality toward one party.
- The arbitrator committed misconduct — refusing to postpone a hearing for good cause, refusing to hear relevant evidence, or otherwise prejudicing a party’s rights.
- The arbitrator exceeded the scope of what the parties agreed to submit.
Beyond those statutory grounds, courts have also recognized the power to vacate an award that violates well-defined public policy. If a religious tribunal issued an award requiring something illegal, or stripped a party of fundamental rights they couldn’t waive by contract, a court would refuse to enforce it. The bar for public policy vacatur is deliberately high. It must rest on clearly established law, not a judge’s general sense that the outcome seems unfair.
These safeguards operate independently of any state foreign law ban. They apply to every arbitration award, religious or secular. For someone weighing religious arbitration, the practical takeaway is that the process works within the boundaries of American law. An award produced through fair procedures that respects both parties’ rights will be enforced. One that isn’t will be challenged on the same grounds that apply to any arbitration gone wrong.