States Move to Lock Out Foreign Legal Systems
Legislatures across the country are advancing a straightforward principle: American courts apply American law. Not Sharia law. Not the legal codes of foreign nations. Not religious law systems that operate outside the constitutional framework. The legislation, often called American Laws for American Courts, strips away any ambiguity about which legal authority governs disputes in state courts.
The bills are narrow and specific. They prohibit courts from recognizing, enforcing, or applying the legal principles of any foreign nation or any legal system not rooted in the U.S. Constitution or state statute. A contract dispute gets resolved under contract law. A property matter gets resolved under property law. Both derive from American legal tradition and constitutional authority.
This is not theoretical. Cases have surfaced where parties cited foreign law or religious law codes as binding in American proceedings. A custody dispute in one state invoked Islamic family law principles. A commercial contract in another state incorporated provisions from a foreign nation's commercial code. Courts have had to decide whether to honor those invocations or reject them as inconsistent with American judicial authority.
The Constitutional Question
The constitutional foundation here is straightforward. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees that no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Due process means the law applied to you is the law you had notice of, that you can read, and that you can challenge through American judicial procedure.
When a court applies a foreign legal code or a religious law system that operates outside the constitutional framework, it applies law that most defendants have not had adequate notice of and cannot effectively challenge. The foreign law may conflict with constitutional guarantees. The religious law may deny rights that the Constitution protects.
Conservative legal thinking on this point is clear. The authority to bind you to legal obligations derives from sovereignty. American courts possess sovereignty derived from the people of the United States and the states. A foreign nation has no sovereignty here. A religious legal system has no state authority. Therefore, neither can bind you in an American court.
Why This Matters Now
The legislation reflects a growing concern about judicial overreach and the erosion of clear legal boundaries. Over the past two decades, some courts have begun to entertain arguments based on foreign law in ways that would have been unthinkable earlier. What starts as accommodation for a single religious community or foreign contractual clause can expand into a broader practice where American judicial authority becomes negotiable rather than absolute.
The concern is not hypothetical. Advocates have argued in American courts that foreign law should govern inheritance disputes, marriage validity, child custody, and commercial transactions. Some judges have entertained those arguments. Others have rejected them. The inconsistency itself is a problem. A citizen should know that when they enter an American court, American law will govern the proceeding. Not maybe. Not depending on the judge's view of cultural accommodation.
That certainty is foundational to the rule of law. The rule of law means law that is public, knowable in advance, and equally applied. It does not mean law that is negotiable based on the litigant's preferred legal system. It does not mean courts deciding which parts of American law apply and which parts of foreign law might take precedence.
The Federalism Dimension
These bills also reassert state sovereignty over state courts. A state court derives its authority from the state constitution and state law. It does not derive authority from foreign nations or religious authorities. When a state legislature enacts a law limiting what legal systems its courts may apply, the legislature is exercising direct control over a core state function.
This is proper federalism in action. The federal government does not dictate which legal systems state courts may or may not apply. The states decide that themselves. If Arizona decides that Arizona courts apply Arizona law, not foreign law, that is an exercise of state legislative authority that does not require federal permission and does not violate the Constitution.
Federal courts, for their part, are bound by federal law and the Constitution. That includes statutory law enacted by Congress. Congress has authority to establish rules for federal courts and to specify which legal systems federal courts may apply. The same principle applies to states: they possess authority within their borders to specify the legal systems their own courts will apply.
Practical Effect
The legislation creates clear statutory language that judges cannot work around. Instead of relying on judges to recognize and reject foreign law on their own, the statute makes clear that foreign legal codes have no standing in state court. A judge cannot apply foreign law because the statute forbids it. A party cannot argue for foreign law because the statute does not permit it.
This shifts the burden. Instead of requiring the opposing party to argue against foreign law and asking the judge to agree, the statute puts the burden on the party invoking foreign law to explain why a statute of the state does not apply. That is the proper allocation. A litigant seeking to displace the law of the state where the court sits should bear the burden of justifying that displacement.
What Comes Next
Conservative states are moving on this without waiting for federal guidance. They are writing their own statutes, passing them through their own legislatures, and asserting the principle that state courts apply state law. The practice is spreading because the principle is sound and the concern is genuine.
If you live in a state considering this legislation, mark the bill number. Find the vote when it passes. American courts should apply American law. That should not require a statute to enforce. The fact that it does is the problem your elected representatives are trying to solve.
