Constitutional Foundation Under State-Level Review
A quiet shift is happening in state legislatures across the country. States are moving to codify what sounds obvious: American courts apply American law. Yet the fact that legislatures feel compelled to write this into statute tells you something about how unclear the constitutional line has become.
The impulse comes from a real problem. Over the past two decades, American courts have occasionally entertained disputes that relied on foreign legal standards—primarily Islamic sharia law—to resolve family law matters, inheritance disputes, and contract disagreements. A New Jersey court in 2008 considered a sharia-based interpretation of a marriage contract. A Texas court applied Islamic law to a commercial dispute. These cases did not turn on sharia as the controlling authority, but the fact that they reached the bench at all raised a constitutional question that should have been settled in 1789.
Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution is clear. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. No state legislature, no federal statute, and certainly no foreign legal code can supersede it. Yet the phrase "American Laws for American Courts" is not redundant. It is a clarification written because the obvious became unclear.
The Federalism Question
This falls into a category of statecraft that trips up people who view federalism as merely ornamental. A state has the right—arguably the duty—to declare what law governs within its jurisdiction. That is not a violation of the Constitution. That is an exercise of it. States do not exist to implement uniform national codes. They exist as separate sovereigns with the authority to make law so long as that law does not contradict the Constitution itself.
When Arizona passes a statute saying Arizona courts will apply Arizona law to Arizona disputes, that is federalism working. When a state legislature declares that foreign legal codes may not substitute for constitutional protections—particularly in cases involving family law, where individual liberty is at stake—it is asserting the boundary between state sovereignty and external authority. That is not a culture war move. That is constitutional housekeeping.
The Actual Controversy
Critics contend these laws target Islam specifically and therefore violate the First Amendment's protection of free exercise. That argument deserves serious handling, not dismissal.
But the argument does not survive contact with the text. A statute that says "courts shall apply the law of this state" does not discriminate based on religion. It applies equally to sharia law, canon law, Talmudic law, and the legal codes of any foreign nation. The statute does not prohibit Muslims from worshipping according to Islamic principles. It does not prevent private arbitration under sharia if all parties consent. It simply says that the state court system—which enforces the state's law and derives its authority from the state constitution—does not abdicate that authority to external legal systems.
There is a difference between the right to practice your religion and the right to have state courts enforce a parallel legal system. One is protected. The other is not.
Where This Matters in Practice
The stakes are concrete, not theoretical. Family law cases are where the rubber meets the road. A woman in a custody dispute with her estranged husband should not face a court that applies a different legal standard than the one written in the state's family code. She should have access to the same remedies, the same child support guidelines, the same property division rules that apply to every other person in the state.
A contract dispute between two merchants should not turn on whether one party's religion makes them eligible for a different legal framework than the other party. Contracts are governed by offer, acceptance, consideration, and state law. Not by the religious preference of the party with better lawyers.
This is not hypothetical. It happens. A New York court in 2012 was asked to enforce a marriage contract that included sharia-based terms. A New Jersey case involved a woman seeking to set aside her marriage based on Islamic law while her ex-husband argued for family law protections. These cases forced judges to confront the question: whose law governs?
The answer should be written down before the question reaches a judge who has to improvise an answer.
The Legislative Response
Several states have already passed versions of this statute. Oklahoma did it in 2010. Tennessee, Kansas, and others followed. The approach is consistent: courts in the state shall apply the law of the state. Foreign legal doctrines, regardless of their origin, do not override state law. Period.
Arizona has not yet taken this step, though the question has come up in legislative discussions. If your state legislature has not addressed it, they should. Not because sharia is uniquely dangerous—though some versions are—but because state law should mean something. The Constitution should mean something. When a state says its courts apply its law, that is not bigotry. That is sovereignty.
What to Watch
Track whether your state legislature has passed an "American Laws for American Courts" statute. If not, ask your representative why not. If yes, note how the courts have applied it and whether they have maintained the distinction between regulating dispute resolution and regulating religious belief.
The real test comes when a court has to choose between state law and an external legal system in an actual case. That is when the statute's language matters and when someone's rights turn on whether the legislature was clear about whose law applies in American courts.
You have a right to apply your religion to your own choices. You do not have a right to ask the state to enforce a parallel legal system. The sooner that distinction is written into state law, the clearer the answer becomes when it is tested in court.
