Preserving a Sharia-Free America Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Roy, Chip [R-TX-21]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Oct 8, 2025
Bottom line
This bill seeks to exclude and remove individuals from the United States based on their adherence to Sharia law, granting broad, unreviewable authority to executive branch officials for such determinations.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to prohibit any alien who adheres to Sharia law from receiving immigration benefits, visas, immigration relief, or admission to the United States. It also mandates the revocation of existing immigration benefits and removal for aliens already in the U.S. found to adhere to Sharia law, or who make false statements about their adherence. Crucially, it bars judicial review for any determinations made under this Act.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue this bill is essential for national security, preventing the entry of individuals whose beliefs may be incompatible with U.S. law and constitutional principles. They contend that Sharia law, in some interpretations, advocates for legal systems that conflict with American jurisprudence, and that this measure protects American society and values from foreign legal doctrines.
Opponents contend
Opponents would likely argue that this bill is discriminatory, unconstitutional, and targets individuals based on their religious beliefs, violating the First Amendment's protection of religious freedom. They would contend that 'adherence to Sharia law' is an overly broad and vague criterion that could lead to arbitrary enforcement and prejudice against Muslims, potentially fueling Islamophobia and undermining America's image as a beacon of religious liberty.
The bill text is very short and straightforward, allowing for quick comprehension of its explicit provisions.
Section 2(a)
Denial of Immigration Benefits and Admission
This provision mandates that the Secretary of State, Secretary of Homeland Security, and Attorney General must deny any immigration benefit, visa, immigration relief, or admission to the United States to any alien who adheres to Sharia law. This creates a new ground of inadmissibility based on religious or legal adherence, effectively barring such individuals from entering the country.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this is a necessary national security measure to prevent the entry of individuals whose ideologies are deemed incompatible with American legal and constitutional frameworks. They might assert it's a preventative step against potential threats or cultural conflicts.
Critics contend
Critics would contend this provision is discriminatory and unconstitutional, violating the First Amendment by targeting individuals based on religious belief. They would argue it's an unworkable standard, as 'adherence to Sharia law' is vague and diverse, leading to arbitrary and prejudiced enforcement against Muslims.
Tradeoffs
The tension lies between national security concerns, as framed by proponents, and fundamental constitutional rights, particularly religious freedom and due process, as highlighted by opponents. It also raises questions about the U.S.'s image as a welcoming nation.
Section 2(b)
Revocation and Removal of Aliens in the U.S.
This provision stipulates that any alien already in the United States who is found to be an adherent of Sharia law by the Secretary of State, Secretary of Homeland Security, or Attorney General will have their immigration benefits, relief, or visa revoked, be deemed inadmissible or deportable, and subsequently removed from the United States. This applies to individuals already residing in the country.
Section 2(c)
False Statements Regarding Sharia Adherence
This provision states that any alien who makes false statements to federal agencies about their adherence to Sharia law, under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1001, will have their immigration benefits, relief, or visa revoked, be considered inadmissible or deportable, and be removed from the United States. This specifically targets misrepresentation related to Sharia law adherence.
Section 2(d)
Judicial Review Bar
This provision explicitly states that any determination made by the Secretary of State, Secretary of Homeland Security, or Attorney General under this Act shall be final and not subject to review by any court, notwithstanding any other provision of law. This removes the ability for affected individuals to challenge these decisions in the U.S. judicial system.
Bars any court from reviewing determinations made by the Secretary of State, Secretary of Homeland Security, or Attorney General under this Act.
Section 2(d)
Why it matters:While such clauses are not uncommon in immigration law, making a determination based on a vague religious criterion non-reviewable is highly unusual and potentially evasive of constitutional challenges. It aims to insulate executive actions from judicial scrutiny.
Case for: Supporters would argue it ensures efficient implementation of national security policies without judicial delays or second-guessing, which they might see as necessary for swift action in immigration matters.
Case against: Critics would argue it undermines the rule of law and separation of powers, allowing executive agencies to act arbitrarily and discriminatorily without any accountability or recourse for affected individuals.
Estimated impact: Significantly alters the legal landscape for individuals targeted by this bill, removing a fundamental check on executive power.