No Sharia Act Mandates Constitutional Review for All Foreign Laws in U.S. Courts, Targets Religious Codes

This bill, officially titled the "No Sharia Act," aims to stop U.S. courts and arbitrators from enforcing any foreign law, including religious codes, if that enforcement would violate someone’s fundamental constitutional rights. Essentially, Congress is trying to draw a hard line: the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law, and any outside legal system—specifically including Sharia law—cannot override it in a U.S. courtroom. The law is set to kick in 180 days after it passes, giving the Attorney General time to write up the official rules and mandatory training for judges.

The Constitutional Safety Check

The core purpose of this Act is to ensure that constitutional protections—things like due process, equal protection, and freedom of speech—are never compromised by applying a foreign legal concept. The bill states that any court ruling, judgment, or arbitration decision based even partly on a foreign law that conflicts with these fundamental rights cannot be enforced (Sec. 5). This isn't just about formal court cases; it includes arbitration, which is often used to settle business or community disputes outside the formal court system. The idea is that if you're standing in a U.S. court, you get U.S. rights, period.

Where Private Contracts Hit the Wall

Normally, if two parties sign a contract and agree to be governed by the laws of, say, France or a religious code, U.S. courts usually respect that choice. This bill changes that. While it still allows parties to choose a foreign law, a court is now explicitly prohibited from enforcing that choice if it violates a constitutional right. For a small business owner dealing with an international supplier, this adds a constitutional "out" clause, but it also creates uncertainty: will a judge later decide that the chosen foreign law violates a U.S. right, thereby invalidating the contract’s terms? The bill makes clear that constitutional rights always trump private agreements.

Family Law: A Stricter Standard

The rules get much stricter when it comes to personal matters like marriage, divorce, child custody, and inheritance. In these sensitive family law cases, the court is completely barred from using or enforcing any foreign law if it clashes with fundamental rights or established public policy (Sec. 5). This means that even if both divorcing parents agreed to apply a specific religious or international legal standard regarding custody, a U.S. judge must reject it if it conflicts with state or federal constitutional norms. For families navigating international or cross-cultural divorces, this provision ensures that U.S. standards for child welfare and parental rights are the only ones that apply.

The Broad Reach of “Foreign Law”

While the bill’s title and findings explicitly call out “Sharia law,” the definition of “foreign law” is extremely broad—covering any legal system or code originating outside the U.S. (Sec. 4). This raises questions about scope. While the stated goal is protecting vulnerable people, the mechanism targets specific religious legal systems, leading to concerns about potential discriminatory application. For individuals whose community or religious customs are now categorized as a “foreign law” system, this bill introduces a new layer of judicial scrutiny that could disproportionately affect their ability to use customary law in private agreements or arbitration, even if those agreements are voluntary. The Attorney General is now tasked with drafting the rules (Sec. 6), which will be critical in determining how broadly or narrowly this Act is applied across the country.