Florida’s lawmakers are increasingly focusing on legislation aimed at preventing the application of Islamic Shari’a law within the state’s legal framework. This measure, driven by both state and federal Republican officials, aims to formally protect constitutional rights while blocking foreign legal doctrines that many believe clash with American values.
Central to this initiative is House Bill 119, known as the “No Shari’a Act,” introduced by Florida State Representative Hillary Cassel. Although Cassel previously identified as a Democrat, she is now partnering with Republican leaders on this prominent bill. The legislation seeks to prohibit any court, arbitration panel, or agency in Florida from applying or enforcing foreign laws, particularly targeting Shari’a law. Furthermore, any contracts based on such foreign legal systems would be rendered null and void under the proposed law.
This state effort parallels a federal measure proposed by U.S. Representative Randy Fine and other Republican colleagues. Fine’s version, filed in September 2025, carries nearly identical wording to Florida’s legislation, reinforcing the national movement against the perceived risk of Shari’a law.
“Let me be crystal clear: Sharia law has no place in the United States of America,” Fine asserted during the announcement of his bill. He cited the experience of Western democracies like the U.K., where civil liberties have dwindled due to foreign religious laws infiltrating domestic legal systems. His remarks reflect a deep concern about cultural practices he associates with a threat to societal norms.
Supporters of HB 119 argue that the measure is essential to halt the “creep” of Shari’a law in America. This sentiment is echoed in social media posts urging legislators to protect Floridians from organizations perceived as promoting those foreign laws, including references to specific Muslim groups.
However, both HB 119 and its federal counterpart do not mention any specific Muslim organizations, yet they have drawn swift condemnation from the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). CAIR-Florida and CAIR National jointly labeled HB 119 “a recycled anti-Muslim stunt rooted in lies, fearmongering, and political distraction.” Their opposition highlights broader implications for religious freedoms, which critics say could extend beyond Muslim communities to others who rely on religious arbitration.
The timing of these legislative efforts coincides with heightened political polarization in the United States, particularly in the aftermath of the October 2023 Hamas attack on Israel, which prompted significant military responses in Gaza. This backdrop of international conflict influences state-level legislative priorities, with Florida’s Republican leadership at the forefront.
Governor Ron DeSantis has lent his support to HB 119, indicating strong institutional backing for the initiative. CAIR, in response, raised alarms about the bill’s potential to infringe on religious liberties, suggesting it could adversely affect observant Jews and Catholics as well, who utilize religious arbitration for personal matters like marriage and inheritance.
Legal specialists have scrutinized these so-called “anti-Shari’a” laws. The Brennan Center for Justice, along with the American Bar Association and the Florida Bar Journal, has examined similar proposals in other states. They found little evidence that foreign legal principles have influenced U.S. court judgments in conflict with constitutional protections. The U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals previously struck down Oklahoma’s ban, arguing it violated the First Amendment by discriminating against Islam.
“The proposed state amendment expressly condemns [Awad’s] religion and exposes him and other Muslims… to disfavored treatment,” was the court’s strong rebuke, highlighting potential constitutional issues for Florida if HB 119 is enacted.
The implications for contract law could also be significant. Courts typically uphold contracts that encompass arbitration in accordance with religious or foreign legal customs, provided they do not breach public policy. By nullifying contracts solely based on their legal origin, Florida could invite lawsuits and economic uncertainty.
When asked about her motivations behind introducing the bill, Cassel opted not to engage in a full interview. Instead, she urged a reporter to read the bill, a response that only heightened scrutiny over its purpose and foundations.
Additionally, Representative Chase Tramont has proposed related legislation that revisits how Palestinian territories are discussed in official state documents. This move reflects a cohesive alignment with strong support for Israel within the legislature, illustrating a blend of ideological and political timing amid international tensions.
Critics of the legislation suggest it serves a broader political function, aiming to galvanize voters perturbed by federal governance and anxious about national identity. CAIR Deputy Director Edward Ahmed Mitchell accused supporters of the bill of exploiting fears surrounding Islam to bolster political standing.
For proponents like Congressman Fine and Governor DeSantis, the focus shifts from religion to safeguarding the integrity of American legal standards. Fine expressed a clear determination: “We must draw a line in the sand. The Constitution is not negotiable.”
Nevertheless, constitutional scholars remind that the Supremacy Clause already prohibits foreign law contradicting domestic law, raising questions about the legislative necessity and legality of these bills. CAIR contends that these proposals do not serve the protective role claimed by their backers but rather incite division and exclusion.
As HB 119 progresses through the legislative machinery, the potential for vigorous debate looms in committee discussions and on the House floor. Similar measures have faltered in other states due to constitutional challenges and popular opposition. The fate of Florida’s proposal under legal scrutiny remains uncertain.
For now, Florida’s lawmakers find themselves sharply divided. Some view HB 119 as a necessary defense of legal principles, while others regard it as an unwarranted attack on religious freedoms masked as constitutional protection.
"*" indicates required fields
