Sharia Law: A guide to the US debate
Texas lawmakers and a new congressional caucus are pushing to limit the use of Islamic law in American courts, a move critics say targets a voluntary religious practice rather than a state-imposed code.
By Martin Reynolds ·
President Donald Trump accused U.S. Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed of being a "jihadist" who wants to impose Islamic law in the United States. The remarks came at a campaign rally in Port Huron, Michigan, on Oct. 25, 2026. They join a growing chorus of Republican officials who frame Sharia as a direct threat to the American legal system.
Texas legislators launched the Sharia Free Texas Caucus in March 2026. The group aims to prevent what members describe as the spread of Islamic law within the state. Founder State Rep. Brent Money characterized Sharia as "an entire civilizational legal structure" that endangers American institutions. That same month, nearly 95% of Texas Republican primary voters supported a nonbinding proposition stating that Texas should prohibit Sharia Law.
The movement has expanded to the federal level. The Sharia Free America Caucus, established in December 2025, grew to include 68 Republican lawmakers from 25 states within six months. In June 2026, U.S. Rep. Keith Self of Texas introduced a bill to bar federal courts from enforcing foreign or religious laws that conflict with the Constitution.
Scholars define Sharia as a path to a watering place, a term referring to the divinely ordained way of living a moral life based on the Quran and the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad. It guides believers on prayer, fasting, charity, and family matters. Law professor Asifa Quraishi-Landes notes that these rules span law, ethics, manners, and worship, distinct from state-enforced statutes. Sharia itself obliges Muslims to follow the law of the land wherever they live.
Interpretations of Sharia vary widely among Muslims. They distinguish between Sharia, the divine ideal, and fiqh, the human effort to apply it. Sunni and Shiite traditions often reach different conclusions on marriage, divorce, and financial transactions. Scholars continue to debate modern issues such as organ donation and interest-based banking, meaning there is no single fixed rulebook for all believers.
In the United States, Sharia holds no independent legal authority. Muslims are subject to the same laws as other citizens, and religious commitments guide personal decisions without overriding American law. This mirrors practices in other faiths, such as Orthodox Jewish couples using a beth din for religious divorce or Christian organizations offering biblical mediation. These arrangements are voluntary and must comply with secular legal standards to be enforceable.
Courts enforce religious agreements using neutral principles of law, not religious doctrine. In a 2020 decision, a Maryland appeals court held that a marriage gift, or mahr, could be enforced only under standard contract law. The court did not decide what Islamic theology requires, but rather whether the agreement met ordinary legal criteria. Law professor Haider Ala Hamoudi observes that courts can enforce such agreements precisely because doing so does not require them to interpret Islamic law.
Critics often point to state-imposed Islamic law in other nations to argue for stricter US controls. In Iran, U.N. investigators documented violence against women accused of violating hijab rules, while the Taliban in Afghanistan issued more than 100 decrees targeting women and girls. These examples raise questions about gender equality and coercion, but they differ from voluntary adherence by individuals in the US.
Between 2010 and 2012, lawmakers in at least 32 states introduced bills to keep courts from applying Sharia or foreign law. Oklahoma voters approved a constitutional amendment in 2010 barring courts from considering Sharia. A federal appeals court initially upheld an injunction against the amendment, finding it likely violated the First Amendment by singling out Islam. A federal judge struck the amendment down permanently in 2013. Existing legal safeguards already allow courts to reject agreements obtained through coercion, fraud, or violations of constitutional rights.
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has described Islamic panels as "Sharia tribunals masquerading as legal courts." However, similar bodies in other faiths, such as the Beth Din of America, structure proceedings so civil courts can enforce their rulings. Courts can enforce voluntary arbitration awards and can vacate them for fraud or overreach, ensuring that religious arbitrators cannot override statutes or the Constitution.
