Washington, D.C. — The nation’s capital was thrust into immediate political turmoil this week after Representative Chip Roy of Texas and former national security official Kash Patel jointly unveiled the U.S. Courts Act of 2025, legislation that supporters have rapidly rechristened the “American Sharia Freedom Act.”

Within hours of its introduction, the proposal ignited a fierce, nationwide debate over constitutional authority, religious freedom, and the role of foreign legal doctrines in the American justice system.

At its core, the bill seeks to prohibit federal courts from enforcing or deferring to any foreign legal system or doctrine that conflicts with rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

While the legislation is written broadly, its sponsors made clear that their primary concern is the potential influence of Sharia law and other religious or international legal frameworks they argue are incompatible with American constitutional principles.

“This is about protecting Americans from ever being judged under a legal system that contradicts our Constitution,” Rep. Roy said during a packed press conference on Capitol Hill.

“No American should be subjected to medieval law — law that discriminates against women, suppresses free speech, or punishes people for their personal beliefs. That is fundamentally un-American.”

A Bill That Sparked Immediate Shockwaves

The introduction of the bill triggered instant reactions across Congress, cable news, and social media. Lawmakers crowded microphones in the House corridors, while hashtags related to the bill surged to the top of X and other platforms within minutes.

Supporters hailed the measure as a long-overdue safeguard of constitutional sovereignty, while critics condemned it as inflammatory and stigmatizing.

Kash Patel, who appeared alongside Roy, delivered some of the most pointed remarks. “Religious freedom is a cornerstone of this country,” Patel said. “You are free to worship as you choose — that freedom was bought with the blood of generations of patriots.

But cutting off hands, stoning women, or criminalizing speech in an American courtroom crosses a red line. That is not justice, and it’s not America.”

Patel’s rhetoric drew both applause and outrage, encapsulating the emotional intensity surrounding the proposal. Conservative lawmakers quickly lined up to endorse the bill, framing it as a defense of constitutional law against what they describe as creeping legal relativism.

Progressive Backlash and Accusations of Fearmongering

Progressive lawmakers and civil rights organizations wasted no time pushing back. Several Democratic representatives accused Roy and Patel of exploiting fear and misunderstanding of Islam for political gain.

They argue that U.S. courts already operate under the Constitution and that no credible threat exists of Sharia law being imposed through the federal judiciary.

“This bill is unnecessary, divisive, and designed to stigmatize Muslim Americans,” said Rep. Ilhan Omar in a statement. “Our Constitution already prevents any court from enforcing laws that violate fundamental rights.

This is a solution in search of a problem — and a dangerous one at that.”

Organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union echoed those concerns, warning that the legislation could have unintended consequences for religious arbitration, international business contracts, and family law cases that reference foreign legal principles for limited purposes.

Legal scholars are similarly divided. Some constitutional experts note that U.S. courts occasionally consider foreign law in cases involving international contracts or cross-border disputes, but stress that such consideration does not override constitutional protections.

Others argue that codifying a clear prohibition could prevent ambiguity and future judicial overreach.

Conservatives Celebrate a “Line in the Sand”

Despite the backlash, conservative activists and media figures celebrated the bill’s introduction as a defining moment. Many framed it as a clear assertion of American legal independence in an increasingly globalized world.

“This is a line in the sand,” said one conservative commentator during a prime-time broadcast. “American courts should apply American law — period. Not foreign doctrines, not religious codes, not international standards that contradict our Constitution.”

Grassroots organizations quickly mobilized, launching petitions and fundraising campaigns in support of the bill.

Rallies were announced in several states under banners reading “One Constitution, One Law” and “Sharia-Free America,” slogans that further fueled controversy and media attention.

Public Opinion Adds Fuel to the Fire

Adding a surprising twist to the unfolding debate, a recent national poll released shortly after the bill’s introduction revealed that 68% of Americans support banning foreign legal doctrines that violate constitutional protections.

Notably, the poll showed significant bipartisan agreement, with a substantial minority of Democrats expressing support for the principle, if not the bill’s framing.

Pollsters suggest the results reflect broader public unease about globalization, cultural fragmentation, and perceived erosion of national identity.

“When the issue is framed around constitutional rights and legal sovereignty, it resonates across party lines,” said one analyst. “The challenge is that the language surrounding Sharia law is emotionally charged and politically explosive.”

What the Bill Actually Does — and Does Not Do

Supporters emphasize that the U.S. Courts Act of 2025 does not target any religion or community, but rather sets a firm boundary for the judiciary. The text explicitly states that religious freedom remains fully protected under the First Amendment, including voluntary religious practices and beliefs.

However, the bill prohibits federal courts from enforcing or recognizing any foreign law — religious or secular — if it conflicts with constitutional rights such as equal protection, free speech, due process, and gender equality.

Critics counter that existing constitutional jurisprudence already accomplishes this goal, making the bill redundant at best and inflammatory at worst.

Some warn it could open the door to challenges against Jewish Beth Din arbitration, Catholic canon law considerations, or even international human rights standards cited in certain cases.

A National Political Firestorm Just Beginning

As committee hearings loom, the debate shows no signs of cooling. Behind the scenes, lobbyists from legal associations, religious groups, and civil liberties organizations are scrambling to influence lawmakers.

Amendments are already being drafted, with some Republicans seeking to narrow the language to avoid legal challenges, while Democrats prepare procedural roadblocks.

Meanwhile, the rhetoric continues to escalate online, where the issue has become a proxy battle over immigration, multiculturalism, national identity, and the meaning of religious freedom in America.

“This fight isn’t just about courts,” said a senior GOP aide. “It’s about what kind of country we want to be — and who decides the rules we live by.”

What Comes Next

As the U.S. Courts Act of 2025 moves through Congress, further developments, key controversies, and previously unreleased details are expected to emerge. Legal experts anticipate constitutional challenges if the bill passes, while political strategists predict it will become a defining issue in upcoming election cycles.

For now, one thing is clear: the fight for what supporters call a “Sharia-Free America” has officially begun — and it has already reshaped the national conversation about law, liberty, and the boundaries of religious freedom in the United States.