Empty American courtroom

United States

What the courts actually do

Get this page right and you are harder to dismiss. Get it wrong and one law review article ends the project.

Adults walking up the steps of a courthouse
The public courthouse is the forum of record — not a mosque basement, not a private panel.

The Constitution already wins on paper

No U.S. court applies Sharia as a governing criminal or public legal code. The Supremacy Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment sit above every religious manual. A state may not establish a religion and may not deny equal protection.

Pew’s 2026 portrait put the U.S. Muslim population at about 5.5 million people of all ages, up from 2.4 million in 2007 — still on the order of one percent of the country. Mosque counts rose over the same generation. Growth is real. Replacement of the civil courts is not.

Where religious law does enter

It enters the way other religious law enters: through private choice.

  • Contracts. A marriage contract (nikah / mahr), a will, a partnership agreement that refers to Islamic rules.
  • Religious arbitration. The Federal Arbitration Act makes written arbitration agreements broadly enforceable. Jewish beth din panels and Christian tribunals use the same statute.
  • Foreign judgments. A U.S. court asked to recognize a divorce or custody order from another country will refuse if the result violates public policy or basic fairness.
  • Neutral principles in family court. Judges may look at a religious document as a contract. They may not become theologians.

Courts already have tools to void an award obtained by duress or one that would violate a child’s best interests or a spouse’s constitutional rights. The gap is practical: people who never reach a courthouse, or who are told that using a “kafir court” is forbidden.

State and federal bills

Since about 2010, many states have passed or debated “American Laws for American Courts” statutes. The durable versions are neutral: they bar a court from enforcing foreign or religious law when doing so would violate fundamental rights. Oklahoma’s 2010 amendment that named Sharia specifically was blocked as religious targeting.

Naming a religion in a bill title makes a good press release and a worse constitutional case. One Civil Law prefers the neutral rule: no enforceable result that denies equal protection, from any foreign or religious source.

The honest U.S. claim is not “Sharia replaced the county courthouse.” It is: informal panels, social coercion, and some private contracts can produce outcomes the public law would reject — especially for women, children, apostates, and LGBT people — and the state should not launder those outcomes.

Read next: documented harms and policy asks.