Texas Lawmakers Launch Sharia-Free Caucus

Estimated Time to Read: 9 minutes

The recent launch of the Sharia Free Texas Caucus in the Texas House of Representatives signals that the debate over Sharia law and foreign legal influence is likely to become a more prominent issue in Texas policymaking. The caucus, announced by State Rep. Brent Money (R-Greenville) and several other Republican lawmakers, frames its mission as protecting Texas from what supporters describe as the growing influence of Islamic legal principles in American society.

The formation of the caucus comes amid broader political and cultural discussions about immigration, religious freedom, constitutional sovereignty, and the role of foreign legal traditions in American courts. Similar discussions have taken place in other states and at the federal level, where lawmakers have proposed legislation aimed at limiting the application of foreign law in domestic courts.

Understanding the implications of the caucus requires examining both the policy objectives being discussed and the constitutional framework that governs how states can respond to concerns about religious or foreign legal systems.

The Formation of the Sharia Free Texas Caucus

The caucus was announced in early March 2026 by State Rep. Brent Money, along with a group of Republican lawmakers. According to public statements surrounding the announcement, the caucus intends to examine how Sharia law interacts with American constitutional protections and develop legislative proposals addressing the issue.

Supporters of the caucus argue that Sharia law, which they describe as a comprehensive legal and ethical system derived from Islamic religious texts, conflicts with constitutional principles such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and equal protection under the law. The caucus announcement also connects concerns about Sharia law with immigration patterns and the growth of Muslim religious institutions in Texas.

The caucus draws inspiration from a similar federal effort known as the Sharia Free America Caucus in Congress. Its founders indicate that the Texas caucus will work on policy proposals during the current legislative cycle and beyond.

While the caucus is framed as a response to perceived cultural and legal changes, it also reflects a broader political trend in which issues of national identity, immigration, and religious influence are becoming more prominent in state-level policy debates.

The following Texas House lawmakers are members of the newly formed Sharia Free Texas Caucus as of this publication:

The Policy Goals Being Discussed

Public statements from caucus supporters emphasize several policy goals. These include examining potential conflicts between Sharia law and constitutional rights, investigating organizations that lawmakers believe may have connections to foreign political movements, reinforcing what they describe as the ‘Biblical foundations of Western liberty’, and strengthening enforcement of immigration laws and public benefit eligibility.

The framing of these objectives highlights two overlapping themes. The first is a national security perspective focused on foreign influence and potential extremist networks. The second is a cultural perspective focused on the perceived compatibility of Islamic legal traditions with American constitutional values.

These concerns are not new. Similar debates have occurred periodically in American politics for more than a decade. Several states have attempted to enact legislation prohibiting courts from applying Sharia law or foreign law more broadly. Many of those efforts have encountered legal challenges or have been revised to address constitutional concerns.

The Texas caucus is therefore entering an area of policymaking where legal precedent and constitutional interpretation play a significant role.

How Foreign Law Already Functions in U.S. Courts

One of the central issues in the debate surrounding Sharia law is the role foreign legal principles play in American courts. In practice, courts sometimes consider foreign law in limited contexts such as international contracts, arbitration agreements, or family law disputes involving parties from different countries.

However, American courts operate under a strict constitutional hierarchy. The U.S. Constitution and federal law are the supreme law of the land under the Supremacy Clause of Article VI. State courts cannot enforce any rule that violates constitutional rights.

If a foreign legal principle conflicts with due process, equal protection, or other constitutional protections, courts simply refuse to enforce it. This principle has long been part of American jurisprudence and is known as the public policy exception in conflicts-of-law doctrine.

For that reason, foreign or religious legal frameworks cannot override constitutional protections in American courts.

Texas Legislative Precedent on Foreign Law

Texas lawmakers have previously addressed concerns about foreign legal systems in specific contexts.

In 2017, the Texas Legislature passed House Bill 45 (HB 45), authored by former State Rep. Dan Flynn (R-Van), which required the Texas Supreme Court to adopt rules and provide judicial instruction regarding cases involving foreign law in family law disputes. The legislation was designed to ensure that constitutional rights and the best interests of children are protected when foreign legal principles arise in court proceedings.

Rather than banning any particular legal system, the law focused on procedural safeguards, judicial training, and appellate review standards. This approach reflected an effort to address potential issues without targeting any specific religion.

More recently, in 2025, Texas lawmakers passed House Bill 4211 (HB 4211), authored by State Rep. Candy Noble (R-Lucas), which addresses certain residential property arrangements and dispute resolution forums. The legislation prohibits certain contracts from requiring disputes to be resolved outside courts established under Texas or United States law in specific contexts. This type of regulation focuses on consumer protection and forum selection rather than religious identity.

Both laws illustrate how the state can address legal concerns through neutral statutory frameworks.

Constitutional Constraints on Religion-Specific Legislation

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits laws that establish religion or restrict the free exercise of religion. These protections apply to state governments through the Fourteenth Amendment.

Because of this constitutional framework, legislation that explicitly targets a particular religion faces significant legal scrutiny. Courts generally require that laws regulating religion be neutral and generally applicable.

If a statute singles out a specific religious tradition for disfavored treatment, courts typically apply strict scrutiny, the highest standard of constitutional review. Under this standard, the government must demonstrate a compelling interest and show that the law is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.

For this reason, past attempts in several states to enact explicit bans on Sharia law have encountered legal challenges.

Assessing the Necessity of New Sharia Restrictions

A key question raised by the formation of the caucus is whether additional legislation is necessary to prevent the application of Sharia law in Texas.

From a legal standpoint, several facts are important.

First, the Constitution already prevents any religious legal system from overriding American law. Courts are obligated to reject any rule that conflicts with constitutional protections. Second, Texas courts already possess the authority to refuse enforcement of foreign judgments or arbitration awards that violate public policy. Third, existing statutes address areas of concern such as terrorism, financial crimes, foreign influence operations, and misuse of public funds. These laws regulate conduct rather than belief. Finally, previous Texas legislation has already established procedural safeguards when foreign law arises in sensitive contexts such as family law.

Taken together, these legal realities suggest that the American legal system already contains mechanisms to address the types of conflicts often cited in the debate over Sharia law.

The Political Context of the Caucus

The creation of the Sharia Free Texas Caucus reflects broader political dynamics within Texas and national politics. Issues involving immigration, religious freedom, and national identity have become increasingly prominent in public debate.

For many voters and activists, concerns about Sharia law represent a broader anxiety about cultural change and the preservation of constitutional principles. Legislators responding to those concerns may seek to propose legislation that demonstrates a commitment to defending American legal traditions.

At the same time, policymakers must navigate constitutional limitations that restrict how states can regulate religion. The interaction between political pressures and constitutional law will likely shape how the caucus’s proposals evolve.

What Comes Next

The Sharia Free Texas Caucus is likely to spend the coming months examining policy proposals related to foreign law, immigration enforcement, and national security concerns. Some proposals may focus on strengthening existing safeguards, while others may attempt to introduce new statutory restrictions.

Any such legislation will need to operate within established constitutional principles governing religious neutrality and equal protection under the law.

Texas lawmakers have historically addressed concerns about foreign law through narrowly tailored procedural safeguards rather than broad religious prohibitions. Whether the new caucus follows a similar approach remains to be seen.

What is clear is that the debate over Sharia law and constitutional sovereignty is not likely to disappear. As the issue continues to gain political attention, discussions about how best to reconcile constitutional protections with policy concerns will remain an important part of the legislative process in Texas.

Texas Policy Research relies on the support of generous donors across Texas.
If you found this information helpful, please consider supporting our efforts! Thank you!