State Legislatures Move to Protect American Law From Foreign Legal Systems
State legislatures across the country are taking concrete action to prevent foreign legal principles—particularly Islamic law—from applying in American courts. These bills represent a straightforward assertion: American law governs in American courtrooms. Period.
The impulse is not new, but the legislative response is sharpening. Multiple states have enacted statutes that prohibit courts from applying foreign law, foreign legal precedent, or foreign cultural practices when doing so would violate the U.S. Constitution, state constitutions, or state law. The statutes are narrow. They do not prevent parties from choosing arbitration under foreign systems if both consent. They do not prevent academic study of comparative law. What they do is prevent a judge from imposing foreign law on an American litigant who did not agree to it.
Why does this matter? Because contract disputes, custody cases, and probate proceedings increasingly involve parties with ties to foreign nations. Without statutory protection, a trial judge facing a contract signed in Dubai, or a custody dispute involving Islamic family law principles, or a will probated under Sharia, faces genuine legal uncertainty. Does state law apply? Does the foreign legal system? What happens when they conflict?
The statutes answer those questions in advance: state law applies. American constitutional protections apply. A court cannot enforce a foreign judgment if that judgment was entered under a legal system that denies due process as Americans understand it.
What These Laws Actually Say and Do
Most state statutes that address this issue contain a few consistent elements. First, they prohibit courts from applying foreign law if it would violate the U.S. Constitution or the state constitution. Second, they allow parties to choose arbitration or dispute resolution under foreign law only if both parties consent in writing. Third, they protect against enforcement of foreign judgments that were entered without adequate due process protections.
Arizona has such a statute. So do Texas, Louisiana, Florida, and a growing list of other states. The language is ordinarily straightforward. A judge cannot apply Sharia law, or any other foreign legal system, to an American citizen who did not consent to it. A court cannot enforce a custody order or a property division issued by a foreign tribunal unless that tribunal provided basic procedural protections.
These are not anti-immigration measures. They do not prevent immigrants from practicing their faith or maintaining cultural traditions. They do not prevent immigrant communities from using arbitration or alternative dispute resolution if both parties want to. They simply establish that American law prevails in American courts.
The Constitutional Question Underneath
The deeper issue here is federalism and the nature of American judicial authority. A state court in Arizona is not a forum for applying international law. It is a forum for applying Arizona law and the U.S. Constitution. Its authority comes from the Arizona Constitution and the people of Arizona. When that court sits on a bench, it exercises sovereign power on behalf of Arizona citizens. It cannot delegate that power to a foreign legal system that Arizona citizens did not vote for and cannot hold accountable.
This is not a theoretical concern. Courts in Europe and Canada have grappled with this question repeatedly. In some instances, judges have applied foreign law or allowed foreign legal principles to override domestic protections—particularly in cases involving custody or inheritance. The result has sometimes been outcomes that violate Western legal traditions, like custody orders based on gender without regard to the child's best interests under American law.
American state legislatures are simply saying: not here. Not in our courts. Not without the consent of both parties in writing. Not without due process as we define it.
The Practical Reach
These statutes matter most in jurisdictions with significant immigrant populations. Texas, Florida, Michigan, and Arizona all have substantial populations with ties to the Middle East, North Africa, and South Asia. In those states, family law disputes, contract disagreements, and estate administration can quickly become complex when foreign law might otherwise apply.
A custody dispute between a mother in Phoenix and a father in Egypt, for instance. Arizona law says the mother gets custody. Egypt's legal system says the father gets custody. Which prevails in Arizona? Under Arizona's statute, Arizona law prevails. The court applies the best interests of the child standard as Arizona defines it. The foreign judgment is enforceable only if the foreign court provided due process protections comparable to Arizona's. That is not a bias against Islamic law. That is a requirement that any legal system that touches Arizona citizens meets Arizona's constitutional floor.
Why This Matters for Constitutional Governance
These statutes are an underreported assertion of state sovereignty. They say that the judicial power of a state belongs to that state. It is not available for loan to a foreign legal system. It cannot be bargained away without explicit written consent of both parties. It cannot be exercised by judges who are not accountable to the American electorate.
Conservative advocates argue—correctly—that this protects religious freedom, not threatens it. People are free to practice Islam, Judaism, or Catholicism. People can pray, worship, and follow religious law in their private affairs and their voluntary associations. But when they enter an American courtroom, they are subject to American law. That is not religious discrimination. That is the boundary between private liberty and public law.
The statutes also push back against the notion that American courts should treat foreign law as equivalent to American law. They assert that American judges have a duty to American citizens first. That sovereignty matters. That the law under which you live should be a law you can vote against, and that should matter.
What Comes Next
More states will likely pass or strengthen these measures. As demographic change continues and as international commerce and family ties grow more complex, the issue will appear more frequently. The real test will come when a trial court applies one of these statutes and a litigant argues that it violates free exercise rights or discriminates against a particular religion. That case will likely reach appellate courts and possibly the U.S. Supreme Court.
Conservative legal scholars argue that these statutes will survive that challenge because they are viewpoint-neutral. They do not prefer Christian law to Islamic law. They simply say that all law applied in an American court must be American law unless all parties explicitly consent otherwise. That is not religious discrimination. That is the assertion that Americans govern themselves.
If you are in a state that has not yet passed such a statute, ask your state representative why not. The issue will arrive in your courtroom whether you anticipate it or not. Better to settle the principle in advance by statute than to litigate it case by case.
