by Matthew Holloway | Mar 7, 2026 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
Arizona Senate lawmakers passed legislation on Monday that would explicitly prohibit the use of Sharia law in state courts, a proposal supporters say clarifies existing statutes governing the application of foreign law in judicial proceedings.
The measure, Arizona Senate Bill 1018, would amend Arizona law to specify that the definition of “foreign law” includes Sharia law, the religious legal tradition associated with Islam.
Under current Arizona law, state courts are prohibited from enforcing foreign laws when doing so would violate the U.S. Constitution, the Arizona Constitution, or state statutes.
SB 1018 would revise that framework by explicitly naming Sharia law within the statute governing the application of foreign law in state courts and by expanding the definition to include any legal system outside U.S. federal or Arizona law.
Supporters of the proposal say the measure is intended to clarify that religious or foreign legal codes cannot override constitutional protections in Arizona courts.
The legislation was introduced by State Sen. Janae Shamp (R-LD29) and passed the Senate floor in a 17-12 vote after receiving committee approval.
Opponents say the bill singles out a specific religious legal tradition and could stigmatize Muslim communities in the state. Senate Minority Leader Priya Sundareshan (D-LD18) told AZ Capitol Times that the bill specifically referenced the practices of female genital mutilation, forced marriage, and “domestic violence or spousal abuse that is justified by cultural, religious, or family authority,” stating that they could be considered related to some followers of Islam.
She told the outlet, “So really, what this bill does is it singles out a group of people, and it singles out a religion for harassment and discrimination merely by the fact that we are talking about this.” She added, “It is targeted discrimination. It is asking for more harassment and discrimination.”
In a statement to the California Globe, Sen. Shamp said, “This bill aims to defend American rights and ensure our legal system remains clear and consistent.”
She explained, “Sharia law is a religious legal system that, in practice, has been used to justify unequal treatment of women, restrictions on free speech, and punishment for religious dissent — all of which conflict directly with the U.S. Constitution. Allowing any foreign or religious law into our courts creates dangerous ambiguity. This legislation sends a strong message: in America, the Constitution takes precedence.”
A broader national trend has seen several states pass laws limiting the use of foreign or religious legal systems in court proceedings over the past decade. Measures prohibiting the application of Sharia law or other foreign legal codes have previously been adopted in 10 other states—Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Kansas, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Washington —according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Arizona already has statutory restrictions on foreign law in judicial decisions, and critics of SB 1018 argue the proposal is largely symbolic because those protections already exist. However, Sen. Hildy Angius (R-LD2) pushed back on the objection, telling the Times, “But that’s not the point,” adding that the bill is designed to address the judicial process after the law has already been broken.
“This amendment addresses whether any external legal system may ever be invoked to justify, excuse, or pressure conduct that violates Arizona law,” Angius said. “Clarifying legal supremacy is not redundant. It is preventative.”
She also rebuked claims that the bill targets the Islamic faith, saying, “Sharia is a legal system. This amendment does not judge faith. It clarifies authority.”
The legislation is continuing through the Arizona Legislature and would require approval by the House of Representatives before being sent to Governor Katie Hobbs for consideration, where its adoption outlook is grim. Since taking office in 2023, Gov. Katie Hobbs has vetoed more than 390 bills passed by the Republican-led Legislature, more than any governor in Arizona history.
Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.
by Shiry Sapir | Feb 6, 2026 | Opinion
By Shiry Sapir |
Arizona is debating SB 1018, a bill that defines Sharia law as “foreign law” for purposes of Arizona statute. For many people, this raises understandable questions. Is this necessary? Is it constitutional? Is it fair? And is it really about Islam?
Those questions deserve serious answers, not slogans.
At its core, this debate turns on a simple but critical distinction: Does the law regulate belief, or does it regulate what our courts will enforce? The Constitution protects belief absolutely. It does not require the state to enforce religious rules as civil law.
That line has long been recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court. Justice Antonin Scalia summarized it plainly when he wrote that religious belief does not excuse individuals from compliance with neutral laws of general applicability. In other words, you are free to practice your religion, but the law applies equally to everyone.
SB 1018 does not criminalize prayer, worship, charity, fasting, or personal religious observance. Muslims in Arizona, like people of all faiths, remain fully protected in how they live and practice their religion. What the bill addresses instead is jurisdiction: whether Arizona courts should ever recognize or excuse conduct under a foreign legal system when that conduct violates Arizona law or constitutional rights.
Opponents often argue that raising this issue is “Islamophobic.” But that claim deserves closer examination. A phobia is an irrational fear. What is being discussed here is not fear. It is documented legal outcomes. International human-rights organizations, including the United Nations, have repeatedly documented that in many Sharia-based legal systems, women and children face outcomes that would be unacceptable under American law: forced or underage marriage, unequal legal status, discriminatory custody rules, and punishments that violate basic standards of bodily integrity and due process.
This is not a statement about Muslims as people or about Islam as a faith. It is a statement about how certain legal systems operate when religious doctrine is treated as enforceable law. Unlike personal religious observance, Sharia has historically functioned in many countries as a comprehensive civil and family law system, governing marriage, divorce, custody, inheritance, and punishment.
Why should Arizona hesitate to say—clearly and without apology—that practices such as honor-based violence, female genital mutilation, and child marriage are not welcome here, regardless of where they may be accepted elsewhere? These are not abstract concerns. They are real harms, and the primary victims are overwhelmingly Muslim women and girls. Protecting them is not bigotry; it is basic human decency.
In several countries that apply Sharia-based family law, custody and guardianship rules subordinate the best interests of the child to rigid doctrinal standards, often disadvantaging mothers in divorce. Arizona’s refusal to recognize or excuse such outcomes is not hostility toward faith; it is solidarity with women and children whose rights deserve protection everywhere.
This is where some well-meaning voices hesitate. They worry that naming Sharia law singles out a religion. That concern should be taken seriously, but it should also be addressed honestly. The purpose of SB 1018 is not to judge theology. It is to make clear that Arizona recognizes only one system of enforceable law: the Constitution and the laws enacted under it.
Courts already do this in practice. They refuse to enforce contracts obtained through coercion. They reject foreign judgments that violate public policy. They do not excuse violence, abuse, or the denial of equal protection because someone claims a cultural or religious justification. SB 1018 seeks to clarify that principle, not invent it.
The cautionary example often cited is Oklahoma’s 2010 “Save Our State” ballot measure, which was struck down by the courts. That case matters, but it is frequently misunderstood. Oklahoma’s measure failed because it appeared to condemn a religion itself, rather than focusing on harm or enforceability. The lesson is not that states lack authority to protect constitutional supremacy. The lesson is that laws must be carefully drafted, neutral in application, and focused on conduct, not belief.
Arizona can do better by learning from that history.
No statute can reach into private rooms or compel victims to come forward. That is true of laws against child abuse, domestic violence, and human trafficking. But the fact that wrongdoing can be hidden has never been a reason to leave the law ambiguous about what the state will tolerate or excuse when harm does surface. This law does not end religious practice; it ensures that when harm occurs, no religious or cultural rule, of any kind, can be used to justify it.
This debate should not be about fear, and it should not be about faith. It should be about clarity.
Arizona can affirm two truths at once: that religious freedom is a foundational American value, and that no one’s rights, safety, or bodily integrity are negotiable under the law.
For those reasons, SB 1018 deserves support as a clear, careful affirmation of equal justice. Arizona should set the rhetoric aside and stand with those who bear the real-world consequences.
Shiry Sapir serves as the First Vice Chair of the Republican Party of Arizona.
