now, with bills dying in seven states and, most significantly, the authors of the bills in two states actually withdrawing the bills after they learned more about the impact.
Only one state, South Dakota, has passed such legislation this year.
The anti-Sharia campaign hasn’t stopped in its tracks, 
Many have surmised that the anti-Sharia bills, commonly lifted verbatim from a website, have been introduced with little thought. So when some of the sponsors gave the bills some thought, they have changed their minds.
In New Jersey, Republican Assemblywoman Holly Schepisi said, “In the climate of what has been transpiring in the Muslim community in New Jersey, they [New Jersey Muslims] were concerned that it [her bill] would further, in their view, portray Muslims in a negative light. After sitting and listening to their concerns, I agreed to withdraw it.”
The campaign against Sharia law began about four years ago with inaccurate news reports about judges applying Sharia law in court decisions. There were also false stories going the rounds saying that Dearborn, Michigan, which has a large Arab population, had adopted Sharia law in a city ordinance.
In 2010, bills were introduced in some state legislatures to solve this “problem” by forbidding the use of Sharia in those states’ courts. In Oklahoma, the bill proposed a constitutional amendment, which was overwhelmingly approved at a referendum in the fall with little debate but 70 percent voter backing. That gave the anti-Sharia movement a giant boost and considerable attention, although the Oklahoma amendment was recently ruled unconstitutional.
As of this year, there are 41 such bills being pursued in 23 states, according to a tally by the National Conference of State Legislatures.
But aside from Oklahoma, only four states have actually passed such legislation—South Dakota this year, Arizona last year and Tennessee and Louisiana in 2010. Unlike Oklahoma, the laws in those four states do not mention Sharia by name; that is what got the Oklahoma amendment in trouble as it was cast as biased against one faith and a violation of the constitutional freedom of the religion. The four other states approved statutes banning the use of all foreign laws in their courts.
Opponents say that is simply window-dressing or gloss intended to obscure the true goal of assailing Islam.
Backers of the bills say they fill a glaring hole in legal protections for Americans. “There have been all sorts of wild accusations about what this bill does,” said State Sen. Alan Hays of Florida, who sponsored the bill in that state. “This is very clear, very simple: In American courts we need American laws and no other.”
Lawyers say US courts cannot and do not use foreign law to consider guilt or innocence. But they often cite a foreign law in ruling, for example, on an inheritance case when the deceased’s will was drawn up abroad under another country’s laws.
Of the 23 states that have considered such bills in the current legislative session, here is what has happened:
Passed and signed into law—1—South Dakota
Withdrawn—2—Minnesota and New Jersey.
Approved by a committee, still pending—5—Alabama, Alaska, Missouri, Oklahoma and Virginia.
Passed one house so far—2—Kentucky and New Hampshire.
No action yet, just sitting in committee—6—Kansas, Michigan, Nebraska, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and South Carolina.
Died at end of session—7—Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Mississippi, New Mexico and West Virginia. Supporters can reintroduce the legislation next year and start the process all over again if they choose.
The one state to approve the legislation this year, South Dakota, did so easily. The bill passed the House 47-22 and the State Senate 29-4. That law does not mention Sharia by name, but would stop a state court from enforcing a will citing Sharia provisions. The South Dakota statute says: “No court, administrative agency, or other governmental agency may enforce any provisions of any religious code.” That language would also stop enforcement of a will or divorce quoting Jewish law—and that has mobilized many Jewish groups to join Muslims in fighting the proposals around the country. Jewish couples often go to a rabbinical court to decide a divorce agreement and then ask a domestic relations court to enforce it.
Business groups also object to the foreign law ban. A committee of the Virginia House of Delegates approved such legislation, but the House soon sent the bill back to the committee after hearing business concerns. Businessmen said a contract often cites the law in the country where a firm is doing business. But an American state law banning enforcement of a foreign law could tie that contract in knots.
The chairman of the Virginia House Courts of Justice Committee, Republican Delegate David Albo, said he voted against the bill because of concerns it could invalidate foreign adoptions, international letters of credit and certain international contracts.
The proposals could have created a nightmare for Virginia’s courts, said Douglas Laycock, a constitutional law professor at the University of Virginia. The American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia agreed, saying the bills would have caused uncertainty for businesses, litigants and people in family disputes that involve foreign countries.
“The idea that there can be no reliance on foreign law in a Virginia court is utterly impractical,” Laycock said. “You cannot be a state with commercial enterprises in a global economy and not deal with foreign law.”
While the Florida bill, now dead, did not mention Sharia, the sponsor of the bill, Rep. Roger Hunt, told the State House Judiciary Committee, “I would be less than fully honest with you if I didn’t also say that part of the purpose of [the bill] is to deal with what I am going to say generally has been referred to as Sharia law.”
In Florida, the bill passed the House easily 92-24. But it died when a Senate committee refused to take any action on it before the legislature adjourned.
The Florida bill was more carefully worded than bills in many other states. It would have outlawed the use of foreign law only when it violates rights guaranteed by the US Constitution, and only in certain domestic situations, such as divorces and child custody cases. It would not have applied to businesses and said it shouldn’t be construed to prohibit any religious organization from making judgments in “ecclesiastical matters.”
But that’s did little to quiet critics who see such legislation as right-wing fear-mongering riding the back of the anti-Sharia wave.
“It’s a waste of time and irrelevant legislation,” said Nezar Hamze, head of the Miami chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. “But the motive behind it is very troubling.”
A study by the conservative Center for Security Policy reported finding 50 cases in 23 states during the past two years in which judges cited Sharia law in their decisions.
The most fervent supporters of such bills caution that Sharia law could begin to spread outside of Muslim countries in a slow-speed Islamic takeover of the world. Others say not outlawing Sharia jeopardizes the rights of American Muslim women, who, they argue, are oppressed and victimized by Sharia law.
Though Sharia law was an unrecognizable term to nearly every American just a few years ago, it has become much more mainstream. Dangers of Sharia have been aired on the campaign trail, in tea party rallies and on cable news.
One of the most persistent voices on the issue is David Yerushalmi, a Brooklyn lawyer who drafted model legislation on the foreign law issue and who has waged a quiet campaign to get Sharia outlawed in the 50 states. It is his draft that started the campaign, and his text, citing Sharia by name, has been introduced verbatim in many states. (The Minnesota bill that has since been withdrawn was Yerushalmi’s text.)
Yerushalmi’s views have made him a lightning rod; he even declines to say where in Florida he lived as a child because he has family that still calls it home and he says he fears for their safety. He disputes characterizations of him as a bigot.
Yerushalmi calls Sharia “an offensive foreign law.” But he says even if critics are right, and that he and other proponents of such legislation are acting on prejudice, legislatures have nothing to lose by outlawing it.
“If you’re right and Sharia is everything that is good and noble and doesn’t have all the ugly things that we understand it to have,” he said, then such legislation simply will have no effect on the public. Others point out that it has no effect on anyone now unless they have signed a contract or made an agreement that cites Sharia as a basis.
Yarushalmi notes people found to have committed adultery can be stoned under Sharia law. But that observation ignores the fact that no one can be stoned under American law.
Stephen Gele, the leader of the American Public Policy Alliance, says there are egregious court cases that have shown Sharia is a threat in the US, with foreign judgments on divorces and child custody allowed to stand.
“It’s probably a small percentage of a court’s docket, but certainly, if you’re the woman who lost her child to Pakistan, it’s important to you,” he said, citing a case in which he said a mother lost custody because of a foreign ruling that a US court enforced.
Others who have read the case said the American judge enforced the Pakistani court ruling only after determining that it was in conformance with US law. In other words, the Pakistani court decision was not enforced because it was superior to US law but because it was in agreement with US law.