Washington, D.C. — What began as a routine Capitol Hill press conference on December 2, 2025, rapidly escalated into one of the most explosive political confrontations of the year. Within minutes, the unveiling of the Preserving a Sharia-Free America Act—introduced as H.R. 5722 in the House and S. 3009 in the Senate—had ignited a national debate touching the most volatile fault lines in American politics: religion, immigration, constitutional law, and national identity.

Led by Rep. Chip Roy (R–TX) and Sen. John Kennedy (R–LA), the legislation was immediately branded by supporters as the “Sharia-Free America Act.” Its stated goal is clear and uncompromising: to prevent the application or enforcement of Sharia-based legal principles in U.S. federal courts wherever they conflict with the U.S. Constitution.

What followed was not merely a policy announcement, but the opening salvo in a cultural and legal battle that now threatens to reshape the political landscape heading into the midterm elections.

“This Is America—Constitution Only”

Standing before a row of American flags, Roy did not mince words.

“No American should ever face medieval legal codes that treat women as second-class citizens or punish people for leaving a religion,” he declared. “Fifty-seven countries operate under Sharia law. This is not one of them. This is America. The Constitution is the law of the land—period.”

Flanked by Rep. Randy Fine (R–FL) and Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R–AL), Roy framed the bill as a defensive measure rather than an attack on religious freedom. According to its authors, the legislation does not prohibit religious belief or private worship. Instead, it draws what Roy called a “bright constitutional line” against any foreign or religious legal system superseding American civil law.

Sen. Kennedy, known for his sharp wit and unmistakable Southern drawl, delivered the line that would dominate headlines and social media for days:

“You’re free to pray however you like. But there will be no hand-cutting, no stoning, and no 8th-century instruction manuals in my courtroom. That line is bright, red, and written in patriot blood.”

The clip went viral within hours, racking up more than 10 million views across X, YouTube, and TikTok.

What the Bill Actually Does

At its core, the Sharia-Free America Act expands upon existing American Laws for American Courts (ALAC) statutes already adopted in ten U.S. states. Those laws generally prohibit courts from enforcing foreign legal judgments or contracts that violate constitutional protections.

The new federal legislation goes significantly further.

Under H.R. 5722 / S. 3009:

• Federal and state courts would be barred from enforcing contracts, arbitration decisions, or judgments rooted in foreign or religious law—including Sharia—if they conflict with constitutional rights.

• Specific concerns cited include unequal inheritance rules, blasphemy penalties, and apostasy punishments.

• The Immigration and Nationality Act would be amended to render inadmissible any foreign national who openly advocates for Sharia law incompatible with the Constitution.

• Visa holders or immigrants found to have misrepresented their beliefs during the application process could face revocation of status and deportation.

• Federal benefits could be withdrawn from individuals who knowingly provide false statements regarding ideological commitments.

Sen. Tuberville summarized the bill bluntly:

“Anti-American extremism has no home here. There’s no room for ‘death to America’ ideologies inside America.”

Public Opinion: Divided, but Not Evenly

Early polling suggests the legislation resonates beyond the Republican base. According to a national survey conducted days after the announcement, 68 percent of Americans support barring foreign or religious legal systems that conflict with the Constitution. Notably, 41 percent of Democratic respondents expressed support, underscoring a quiet but significant undercurrent of bipartisan concern.

On social media, however, the nation appeared split down the middle. The hashtag #ShariaFreeAmerica trended for two consecutive days, with engagement roughly divided 50/50 between supporters and critics.

Conservative commentators hailed the bill as “long overdue,” citing European cases where parallel Sharia courts have operated in family or civil disputes. Critics, meanwhile, accused lawmakers of fearmongering and targeting Muslims under the guise of constitutional protection.

Democratic Backlash: “Xenophobia Wrapped in a Flag”

Democratic leaders responded swiftly—and furiously.

Civil rights organizations, including the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), condemned the bill as “Islamophobic pandering,” arguing it stigmatizes Muslim Americans who already operate fully within U.S. law.

Rep. Ilhan Omar (D–MN) warned the bill could provoke unrest.

“This kind of rhetoric fuels fear and division,” Omar said. “We’ve seen where this leads—violence, riots, and the erosion of civil liberties.”

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries labeled the proposal “xenophobia wrapped in a flag,” while White House officials privately expressed concern that the legislation could undermine sensitive Middle East diplomacy.

Protests are already forming near the Capitol, with counter-rallies announced in Texas and Louisiana.

A Legal Collision Course with the Supreme Court

Legal scholars across the ideological spectrum agree on one point: if passed, the law will face immediate constitutional challenges.

Opponents argue it could violate the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection guarantees. Supporters counter that the legislation regulates legal enforcement—not belief—and therefore falls squarely within constitutional boundaries.

Precedent may favor the bill’s authors. ALAC laws have survived multiple court challenges at the state level, and courts have historically rejected attempts to enforce foreign judgments that violate fundamental rights.

Still, most experts predict the issue will reach the U.S. Supreme Court, potentially setting a landmark precedent on the limits of religious law in secular courts.

Political Stakes: Midterms and Beyond

House Speaker Mike Johnson has already signaled his intent to fast-track the bill for a pre-Christmas vote. Texas Governor Greg Abbott issued directives aligning state agencies with the bill’s principles, further escalating tensions.

The legislation also fits into a broader conservative agenda. Sen. Kennedy has revived his Born in America Act, while Roy’s earlier anti-Sharia groundwork now finds national momentum.

With immigration and national identity emerging once again as defining wedge issues, strategists from both parties see the Sharia-Free America Act as a potential midterm pivot point.

Supporters frame it as a defense of Western values in a destabilized world. Critics warn it risks overreach and dangerous precedent.

A Battle Far from Over

As protests swell, talk radio roars, and cable news panels argue late into the night, one thing is clear: this debate is no longer about a single bill.

It is about how America defines itself—what it allows, what it forbids, and where it draws its lines.

Whether the Sharia-Free America Act ultimately passes or falls in court, its introduction has already accomplished something profound: it has forced the nation to confront questions it has long avoided.

And as Washington braces for the next round, the declaration has been made loudly, unmistakably, and contentiously:

America intends to remain Sharia-free—no matter the cost.