No Shari’a Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Fine, Randy [R-FL-6]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 19, 2025
Bottom line
The 'No Shari'a Act' aims to legally enshrine the supremacy of the U.S. Constitution over foreign and religious laws in American courts, particularly where such laws might infringe upon individual constitutional rights.
What it actually does
This bill prohibits any Federal, State, or territorial court, including arbitration tribunals subject to judicial enforcement, from applying or enforcing Shari'a or any foreign law that violates the constitutional rights of any party. It specifically addresses contract provisions and family law matters, stipulating that foreign law cannot be applied if it conflicts with fundamental rights or public policy. The bill also directs the Attorney General to issue regulations and provide judicial education for its uniform application.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill is a necessary measure to reaffirm the bedrock principle that the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, ensuring that no foreign legal system, including religious codes like Shari'a, can undermine fundamental American liberties. They contend it is crucial for safeguarding constitutional protections, especially for vulnerable populations who might face unequal treatment under foreign legal systems, and provides clarity for courts on the application of law.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that the bill is unnecessary, potentially discriminatory, and could be seen as targeting a specific religious group, thereby infringing upon religious freedom protections under the First Amendment. They may contend that existing legal frameworks, such as the Supremacy Clause and established public policy exceptions, already prevent the enforcement of foreign laws that violate constitutional rights, making this legislation redundant and potentially inflammatory.
The bill is very short and clearly written, making it accessible for a quick read and evaluation.
Section 2
Sense of Congress on Constitutional Supremacy
This section declares that the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law and no foreign legal system should undermine it. It highlights concerns that applying foreign law in American courts could erode constitutional protections, particularly for women, children, and vulnerable populations. It emphasizes that while individuals can voluntarily observe personal codes, U.S. courts must not enforce laws conflicting with fundamental liberties.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision clearly articulates the foundational principle of American law, providing a strong legislative statement that guides judicial interpretation and reinforces national identity.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that a 'Sense of Congress' is largely symbolic and that the underlying concerns could be addressed through existing legal principles without potentially singling out specific religious laws.
Tradeoffs
This section balances the desire to assert constitutional supremacy with the potential perception of targeting specific religious or cultural practices, even if framed generally as 'foreign law'.
Section 3
Findings and Purposes
This section formally states Congress's findings, including that the Supremacy Clause requires U.S. law to prevail over Shari'a or any foreign law, and that foreign law has been sought in judicial/arbitration cases contrary to constitutional guarantees. Its purpose is to prohibit enforcement of foreign law infringing on constitutional rights, affirm reliance on Federal/State law, and provide clarity on constitutional protections.
Section 4
Key Definitions
This section defines critical terms for the Act. 'Foreign law' includes any law or system from outside the U.S., specifically mentioning religious law when used as a substitute for State or Federal law. 'Court' encompasses Federal, State, territorial courts, and arbitration tribunals whose decisions are judicially enforceable. 'Fundamental rights' are defined as those guaranteed by the U.S. and State Constitutions, including due process, equal protection, freedom of religion and speech, and rights related to marriage, child custody, and property.
Section 5(a)
Prohibition on Enforcement of Violating Foreign Law
This subsection explicitly prohibits any court from enforcing a judgment, decree, or arbitration decision if it relies, even partially, on Shari'a or any foreign law that violates the constitutional rights of any party. This is the core operative prohibition of the bill.
Section 5(b)
Contracts and Choice of Foreign Law
This subsection states that a contract provision choosing foreign law will be considered valid, but only if its enforcement would not result in a violation of constitutional rights. This allows for the use of foreign law in contracts as long as it aligns with U.S. constitutional principles.
Section 5(c)
Family Law and Foreign Law
This subsection specifically prohibits courts from applying or enforcing foreign law in matters of marriage, divorce, child custody, adoption, or inheritance if that foreign law is inconsistent with fundamental rights or public policy. This aims to protect individuals in sensitive family law cases from potentially discriminatory or rights-violating foreign legal applications.
Section 6
Rulemaking and Judicial Education
This section mandates the Attorney General, in consultation with the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, to issue regulations and provide judicial education. The goal is to ensure the uniform application of this Act across the United States.
The definition of 'foreign law' explicitly includes 'religious law when invoked as a substitute for State or Federal law.'
Section 4(1)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to define terms early in a bill. However, its specific inclusion of 'religious law' is highly significant for the bill's scope and potential impact.
Case for: Proponents would argue this explicit inclusion is necessary to prevent religious legal systems from being used to circumvent constitutional protections, ensuring comprehensive coverage of the bill's intent.
Case against: Opponents might argue that this specific inclusion targets religious practices, particularly Shari'a, and could be seen as an infringement on religious freedom, even if framed as a substitute for state/federal law.
Estimated impact: This definition significantly broadens the scope of the bill beyond secular foreign laws to include religious legal systems, directly impacting how religious legal principles might be considered in U.S. courts.
The definition of 'court' includes 'arbitration tribunals when decisions are subject to judicial enforcement.'
Section 4(2)
Why it matters:This is a common legislative technique to ensure comprehensive coverage of legal forums where foreign law might be applied. It's not necessarily evasive but is a critical detail for understanding the bill's reach.
Case for: Proponents would argue that including arbitration tribunals is essential to prevent parties from using arbitration as a loophole to enforce foreign laws that violate constitutional rights, thereby ensuring consistent application of the Act.
Case against: Opponents might argue that this could interfere with the autonomy and flexibility of private arbitration agreements, potentially complicating international commercial disputes where parties voluntarily choose foreign law and arbitration.
Estimated impact: This expands the bill's reach to a significant portion of dispute resolution, ensuring that constitutional protections apply even in privately agreed-upon arbitration, provided the decisions are subject to judicial enforcement.