AN ACT TO PROHIBIT THE APPLICATION OF SHARIA LAW IN MISSISSIPPI COURTS; TO PROVIDE LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS AND LEGISLATIVE INTENT; TO CREATE NEW SECTION 11-63-3, MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, TO PROVIDE THAT CONTRACTS THAT PROVIDE FOR THE APPLICATION OF FOREIGN LAWS, INCLUDING SHARIA LAWS, ARE VOID; TO AMEND SECTION 11-63-1, MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, TO PROVIDE THAT ANY ADMINISTRATIVE OR COURT ORDER THAT SEEKS TO ENFORCE FOREIGN LAWS SHALL BE VOID; TO AMEND SECTION 11-7-301, MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, TO REVISE THE DEFINITION OF "FOREIGN" COURT ORDER; TO AMEND SECTION 93-9-30, MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, TO CLARIFY THE EXCLUSION OF FOREIGN LAW FROM FULL FAITH AND CREDIT FOR ISSUES OF PATERNITY; TO AMEND SECTIONS 11-61-1, 11-62-5, 11-62-7 AND 11-62-15, MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, TO CONFORM TO THE PRECEDING SECTIONS; TO AMEND SECTION 89-8-11, MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, TO PROHIBIT A LANDLORD FROM ADOPTING LEASE TERMS THAT APPLY FOREIGN LAWS; TO AMEND SECTION 87-7-9, MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, TO CONFORM TO THE PRECEDING SECTION; TO BRING FORWARD SECTIONS 11-62-17, 11-62-9 AND 11-62-13, MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, WHICH PROVIDES FOR FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE, FOR PURPOSES OF AMENDMENT; TO AMEND SECTION 11-62-11, MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, FOR CODEBOOK UPDATE; AND FOR RELATED PURPOSES.
HB 1479 would prohibit Mississippi courts, arbitrators, administrative agencies, and other adjudicative bodies from enforcing foreign law when doing so would violate rights protected by the U.S. Constitution, the Mississippi Constitution, or Mississippi law. The bill specifically targets contract provisions in marriage- and parent-child-related disputes that select foreign law or foreign forums, and it declares void any judgment, decree, or arbitration decision that relies on foreign law in a way that conflicts with state or federal law. It also revises the definition of “foreign judgment” and clarifies that full faith and credit does not extend to foreign law in certain family-law contexts.
The measure also amends Mississippi’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act and related statutes to reinforce broad protection for religious exercise and to state that the chapter does not authorize application of foreign law that violates state or federal law. In addition, it would bar landlords from adopting lease terms that apply foreign laws, and it makes conforming changes to construction-contract venue and choice-of-law provisions. The bill takes effect July 1, 2026, and would add a new statutory section, 11-63-3, while amending several existing code sections governing foreign law, family law, housing, and religious liberty.
If enacted, HB 1479 would expand Mississippi law limiting the use of non-U.S. legal systems in state proceedings and private agreements, especially in domestic-relations matters. It would create a new prohibition on contract clauses that require foreign law in marriage and parent-child disputes when that law would infringe fundamental rights, and it would make unenforceable certain court, arbitration, and administrative decisions based on foreign law. The bill also narrows the practical reach of foreign judgments and foreign-law references in paternity, landlord-tenant, and construction-related contracts, while preserving existing full-faith-and-credit treatment for qualifying U.S. judgments and orders.
No committee transcript or recorded vote information was provided, so there is no documented floor or committee sentiment to summarize. Based on the bill text and caption, the measure appears to be framed as a protection of constitutional rights and religious freedom, with a strong emphasis on preventing the use of Sharia law or other foreign legal systems in Mississippi proceedings. The absence of recorded debate or votes means support or opposition cannot be assessed from the available history.
The main point of contention is the bill’s explicit focus on Sharia law and foreign legal systems, which may be viewed by supporters as a safeguard against the enforcement of laws that conflict with constitutional rights, but by critics as unnecessary, stigmatizing, or overly broad. Another likely area of dispute is the bill’s reach into family law, housing, and employment-related protections for religious organizations and individuals, including recusal rights for marriage officials and protections related to gender identity, fertility services, and sex-specific facilities. The bill also raises interpretive questions about how broadly “foreign law” would be defined and when a foreign-law clause or judgment would be void for violating a fundamental right.