BOOT Sharia Law Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Cornyn, John [R-TX]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- May 14, 2026
Bottom line
The bill significantly expands the grounds for inadmissibility, ineligibility for immigration benefits, and deportation for aliens based on their adherence to Sharia law or participation in certain protest activities deemed anti-American.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to disqualify aliens from establishing good moral character, maintaining eligibility for asylum, and retaining lawful permanent resident status if they adhere to or advocate for Sharia law in a manner that violates U.S. constitutional or legal rights. It also bars individuals who participate in activities supporting state sponsors of terrorism or groups opposing the U.S. form of government, Constitution, or principles. Furthermore, it creates a 'Jihadist bar' for refugee status, making individuals who used force or terror for Islamist goals ineligible.
Proponents argue
Supporters would argue this bill is essential for national security and for upholding the principles of the U.S. Constitution by ensuring that individuals who seek to undermine American values or support hostile ideologies are not granted immigration benefits or citizenship. They might assert it protects against the imposition of foreign legal systems incompatible with U.S. law and safeguards against individuals who have engaged in or supported extremist actions.
Opponents contend
Opponents would contend that this bill is discriminatory, particularly targeting individuals of certain religious backgrounds, and could violate First Amendment rights related to freedom of speech and religion. They might argue that its broad language could lead to arbitrary enforcement, chilling legitimate protest, and unjustly denying status to individuals based on vague criteria or perceived ideological opposition rather than concrete criminal acts.
The bill is concise, allowing for a quick read, but its implications are far-reaching and require careful consideration beyond the text itself.
Section 2, amending Section 101(f) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1101(f))
Disqualification from Good Moral Character for Sharia Law Adherence or Anti-U.S. Activities
This provision expands the definition of who cannot establish 'good moral character,' a requirement for naturalization and other immigration benefits. It disqualifies aliens who adhere to or advocate for Sharia law in a way that would violate U.S. constitutional or legal rights, or who participate in activities supporting state sponsors of terrorism, groups that have carried out terrorist acts against the U.S., or groups that oppose the U.S. form of government, Constitution, or principles.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this ensures that only individuals who genuinely respect and uphold U.S. laws and constitutional principles are granted citizenship or permanent residency, preventing those with conflicting ideologies from undermining the nation's legal framework.
Critics contend
Critics contend this provision is overly broad, potentially infringing on freedom of speech and religion, and could be used to target specific religious groups. They argue that 'opposes the form of government' is vague and could criminalize legitimate political dissent.
Tradeoffs
Balances national security and ideological alignment with concerns about religious freedom, freedom of speech, and potential for discriminatory application.
Section 3(a), amending Section 101(a)(42) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(42))
'Jihadist Bar' for Refugee Definition
This provision adds a new exclusion to the definition of 'refugee,' known as the 'Jihadist bar.' It disqualifies any alien who has used force, coercion, violence, or terror to enforce Islamic values or Sharia law, enforce conversions to Islam, achieve an Islamist political goal, or establish Islam as the state religion. This means such individuals would not be considered refugees and thus would be ineligible for asylum.
Section 3(b), amending Section 208(b)(2)(A) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1158(b)(2)(A))
New Grounds for Asylum Ineligibility
This provision adds two new grounds for asylum ineligibility. An alien can be denied asylum if there are reasonable grounds to believe they adhere to or advocate for Sharia law in a way that violates U.S. constitutional or legal rights, or if there are reasonable grounds to believe they have used coercion, force, violence, or terror for purposes related to enforcing Islamic values, Sharia law, conversions to Islam, or achieving Islamist political goals.
Section 3(c), amending Section 209 of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1159)
Disqualification from Lawful Permanent Residence for Refugees/Asylees
This provision states that an alien admitted as a refugee or granted asylum is not eligible to adjust their status to lawful permanent residence if, after admission, they continue to adhere to or advocate for Sharia law in a manner that violates U.S. constitutional or legal rights, or if they have used coercion, force, violence, or terror for purposes related to enforcing Islamic values, Sharia law, conversions to Islam, or achieving Islamist political goals.
Section 4, amending Section 246(a) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1256)
Rescission of LPR Status for Anti-U.S. Activities
This provision allows for the rescission of lawful permanent resident (LPR) status within a 10-year period if the alien was not eligible for adjustment of status, or if they participated in any demonstration, protest, riot, or other organized or ad hoc activity expressing or indicating support for state sponsors of terrorism, groups that have carried out terrorist acts against the U.S., or groups that oppose the U.S. form of government, Constitution, or principles.
Disqualifies aliens from good moral character and allows rescission of LPR status if they participate in activities expressing support for any individual, entity, organization, group, or country that 'opposes the form of government, the Constitution, or the principles of the United States.'
Section 2(1)(B)(iii) and Section 4(1)(B)(iii)
Why it matters:This broad language is likely intended to provide maximum flexibility for enforcement but could be seen as evasive in its lack of specific definitions, potentially allowing for subjective interpretation.
Case for: Proponents would argue this broad language is necessary to cover a wide range of threats and ideological challenges to the U.S. system that might not be explicitly defined elsewhere, providing a crucial safeguard against subversive activities.
Case against: Opponents would argue that this language is dangerously vague, potentially criminalizing legitimate political dissent or criticism of government policies. They contend it could be used to target individuals based on their political views rather than concrete actions, infringing on fundamental rights.
Estimated impact: Potentially impacts any alien or LPR who engages in political expression that could be interpreted as 'opposing' U.S. principles, leading to denial of benefits or deportation.