Preserving a Sharia-Free America Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Tuberville, Tommy [R-AL]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Oct 15, 2025
Bottom line
The bill seeks to bar and remove individuals who advocate for Sharia law in a way that conflicts with U.S. legal principles, while limiting judicial oversight of such decisions.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to make advocating for Sharia law, in a manner that would violate U.S. constitutional or legal rights, a ground for inadmissibility and deportability. It also mandates the revocation of immigration benefits and removal for aliens already in the U.S. who are found to violate this provision, and for those who make false statements about their Sharia advocacy. Crucially, it removes judicial review for certain removal determinations made under its authority.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill is necessary to protect the U.S. Constitution and federal and state laws from foreign legal systems that may undermine fundamental American rights. They contend it is a national security measure to ensure that individuals entering or residing in the United States uphold its foundational legal principles and do not seek to impose conflicting legal frameworks.
Opponents contend
Opponents contend that the bill is unconstitutional, violating the First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and religion by targeting a specific religious legal system. They argue it could lead to discrimination against Muslim individuals, create a chilling effect on religious expression, and undermine due process by limiting judicial review for removal decisions.
The bill is very short and straightforward, making it easily accessible for a reader to understand its core provisions and implications.
Section 2(a)
Denial of Immigration Benefits for Sharia Advocacy
This provision directs the Secretary of State, Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Attorney General to deny any immigration benefit, visa, immigration relief, or admission to the United States for any alien who advocates for the imposition of Sharia law in a manner that would violate the rights of another person under the U.S. Constitution or any federal or state law.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision is essential for national security and to uphold the supremacy of U.S. law, ensuring that individuals who seek to undermine American constitutional rights are not granted entry or benefits.
Critics contend
Critics contend this provision is discriminatory and violates First Amendment rights, particularly freedom of speech and religion, by broadly targeting a religious legal system and potentially leading to profiling.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances national security and constitutional protection with concerns about religious freedom, free speech, and potential for discrimination against specific religious groups.
Section 2(b)
Removal of Aliens Advocating Sharia Law
This subsection mandates that any alien already in the United States who is determined to have violated Section 2(a) (by advocating for Sharia law in a manner that would violate U.S. rights) shall have their immigration benefit, immigration relief, or visa revoked, be considered inadmissible or deportable, and subsequently removed from the United States.
Section 2(c)
Penalties for Failure to Disclose Sharia Advocacy
This section stipulates that any alien who provides a false statement to a federal official regarding their advocacy of Sharia law, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001(a), shall have their immigration benefit, relief, or visa revoked, be considered inadmissible or deportable, and be subject to removal from the United States.
Section 2(d)
Limitation on Judicial Review
This subsection explicitly states that any determination made under subsection (b) (regarding the removal of aliens for Sharia advocacy) shall be final and not subject to review by any court. This significantly curtails the ability of affected individuals to challenge removal decisions in the judicial system.
Section 3
Conforming Amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act
This section makes two conforming amendments to Title II of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). It adds advocacy for Sharia law (in a manner violating U.S. rights) as a new ground for inadmissibility under section 212(a)(10) and as a new ground for deportability under section 237(a). These amendments codify the policies outlined in Section 2 directly into permanent immigration law.
This subsection removes judicial review for determinations made regarding the removal of aliens for Sharia advocacy under Section 2(b).
Section 2(d)
Why it matters:This is a common legislative tactic to insulate executive branch decisions from judicial scrutiny, often justified by proponents as necessary for efficiency or national security. Opponents view it as an attempt to bypass checks and balances.
Case for: Proponents argue that limiting judicial review prevents endless litigation, streamlines the removal process, and allows the executive branch to act swiftly on matters deemed critical to national security without undue interference.
Case against: Opponents argue that removing judicial review fundamentally undermines due process, increases the risk of erroneous or politically motivated removals, and eliminates a crucial check on executive power, potentially leading to abuses.
Estimated impact: Significantly reduces legal recourse for individuals facing removal under this act, potentially increasing the number of finalized removals and decreasing the time spent in litigation.
The core operative phrase 'in a manner that would violate the rights of another person under the Constitution of the United States or any Federal or State law' is a critical qualifier for what constitutes prohibited Sharia advocacy.
Section 2(a), 2(b), 2(c), 3
Why it matters:This qualifier is likely included to attempt to mitigate First Amendment concerns by narrowing the scope of prohibited advocacy. However, its ambiguity could also be seen as a way to create broad discretion for enforcement agencies, which critics might argue is evasive.
Case for: Proponents would argue this qualifier demonstrates respect for religious freedom, ensuring that only advocacy directly conflicting with U.S. law is targeted, not Sharia law in general or peaceful religious expression.
Case against: Opponents would argue that despite the qualifier, the provision remains problematic due to the inherent difficulty in defining 'advocacy' and 'violation' in this context, leading to subjective and potentially discriminatory enforcement. They might also contend it still chills legitimate religious speech.
Estimated impact: The interpretation of this phrase will be central to the bill's implementation, determining the breadth of its application and its vulnerability to legal challenges. It could lead to inconsistent enforcement or broad interpretations that ensnare legitimate religious expression.