HB5512, titled the “No Shari’a Act,” would prohibit courts from enforcing judgments, decrees, or arbitration decisions that rely, in whole or in part, on Shari’a or any other foreign law when doing so would violate constitutional rights. The bill states that the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land and expresses Congress’s view that foreign legal systems should not undermine constitutional protections in American courts.
The bill defines “foreign law” broadly to include laws or legal systems from outside the United States, including religious law when used as a substitute for state or federal law. It also defines “court” to include federal, state, territorial courts, and arbitration tribunals subject to judicial enforcement. In addition to the general prohibition, the bill says contractual choice-of-law provisions selecting foreign law remain valid unless their enforcement would violate constitutional rights, and it specifically bars application of foreign law in family-law matters such as marriage, divorce, child custody, adoption, and inheritance when inconsistent with fundamental rights or public policy. The Attorney General, working with the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, would be directed to issue regulations and provide judicial education, and the act would take effect 180 days after enactment.
If enacted, the bill would add a federal statutory restriction on the enforcement of foreign law, including Shari’a, in judicial and arbitration settings where constitutional rights are implicated. It would affect federal, state, and territorial courts, as well as enforceable arbitration awards, and would likely influence how courts handle choice-of-law clauses and family-law disputes involving foreign legal principles. The bill does not repeal existing state law directly, but it would create a federal rule that limits when foreign law may be given effect and would require implementation guidance from the Department of Justice and the federal courts.
The available context shows the bill was introduced and referred to the House Judiciary Committee, with no recorded votes or committee debate provided. Based on the text, the bill is framed by its sponsors as a constitutional-rights protection measure and as a reaffirmation of the supremacy of U.S. law. Because there are no transcripts or votes, there is no documented bipartisan or committee sentiment in the provided materials beyond the sponsors’ stated support.
The main point of contention is likely the bill’s broad treatment of “foreign law,” especially its explicit focus on Shari’a and its inclusion of religious law in the definition when used in place of state or federal law. Supporters would view the measure as protecting due process, equal protection, and vulnerable parties in family-law and arbitration settings, while critics may argue it is unnecessary because courts already must follow the Constitution and may also raise concerns about religious discrimination, overbreadth, and interference with private contracts and arbitration. The family-law provisions and the bill’s application to arbitration awards are likely to be especially disputed.