Key Takeaways
- •Rep. Roy (R-TX) and Republicans asserted Sharia law's incompatibility with the U.S. Constitution, advocating legislation to deny immigration benefits, while Democrats called the hearing anti-Muslim.
- •Mr. Spencer and Ms. Schild warned of Sharia's political, expansionist nature and growing influence in Texas; Professor Somin argued targeting adherents is unconstitutional and harmful.
- •Rep. Biggs (R-AZ) pressed Mr. Gelé and Mr. Spencer on how Sharia's institutional practices, like child custody rulings, conflict with American jurisprudence and constitutional rights.
- •Republicans emphasized Sharia's threat to constitutional order and the need for vetting immigrants, while Democrats argued the hearing stoked fear against Muslims and violated religious freedom.
- •The hearing underscored legislative efforts to restrict immigration based on Sharia adherence and the ongoing debate about foreign law application in U.S. courts, especially for family disputes.
Read the full transcript
Starting at $350/mo
- Full hearing transcripts
- Speaker timestamps with video verification
- Organization & competitor mentions
- Same-day delivery
- Personalized summaries
30-day money-back guarantee on all paid plans.
Hearing Analysis
Overview
Hearing Title: “Sharia-Free America: Why Political Islam & ShariaOn February 10, 2026, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Constitution and Limited Government held a hearing titled “Sharia-Free America: Why Political Islam & Sharia Law Are Incompatible with the U.S. Constitution.” Chaired by Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX-21), the hearing examined the perceived encroachment of Sharia law within the United States legal system, the influence of foreign-funded Islamic programs in public education, and the potential constitutional conflicts between Islamic jurisprudence and American civil liberties. The session was marked by a sharp partisan divide, with Republicans focusing on national security and the supremacy of the Constitution, while Democrats characterized the proceedings as a politically motivated attack on religious freedom.
Chairman Roy opened the hearing by arguing that a movement is underway to replace the American legal system with Sharia, which he described as a foreign code that rejects due process, subjugates women, and encourages violence. He specifically highlighted developments in his home state of Texas, citing the East Plano Islamic Center (EPIC) and its leader, Yasir Qadhi, as examples of efforts to create Sharia-governed enclaves. Roy also raised concerns regarding Qatari state-supported funding through the Qatar Foundation International (QFI), which he alleged has funneled millions into Texas K-12 schools and universities to promote curricula that exclude Israel and advance Islamist ideologies. He advocated for H.R. 5722, the "Preserving a Sharia-Free America Act," which seeks to deny visas or admission to foreign nationals who adhere to Sharia law.
Ranking Member Mary Gay Scanlon (D-PA-5) countered that the hearing was a "cynical political ploy" aimed at stoking fear ahead of the Texas primary. She argued that H.R. 5722 is a blatant violation of the First Amendment’s Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses, as it targets individuals based on religious belief rather than specific illegal actions. Rep. Scanlon and other Democrats, including Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN-9) and Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), argued that the real threat to the Constitution is "white Christian nationalism" and the "Project 2025" manifesto, rather than the religious practices of American Muslims.
Key Testimony
The witness testimony provided further depth to these conflicting viewpoints. Mr. Gelé, a legal expert, testified on the "intrusion of discordant foreign law" in American state courts. He cited cases where Sharia-based child custody judgments—which often prioritize gender or religious status over the "best interest of the child" standard—were enforced in the U.S. through arbitration or comity. He advocated for "American Laws for American Courts" (ALAC) legislation to protect constitutional rights against foreign legal infiltration. Mr. Robert Spencer, an author and expert on Islam, argued that Sharia is inherently political and supremacist, citing the "Reliance of the Traveller" manual to claim that Sharia mandates jihad and institutionalizes second-class status for non-Muslims.
Conversely, Professor Ilya Somin of George Mason University and the Cato Institute testified that the proposed legislation would be unconstitutional. He emphasized that the First Amendment contains no "immigration exception" and that discriminating against immigrants based on religious adherence would violate the Free Exercise Clause. Somin warned that such policies would provide a propaganda victory for radical Islamist terrorists by framing the U.S. as an enemy of all Muslims. He noted that many Muslim immigrants in the U.S. are actually fleeing the very radical regimes the committee sought to criticize.
Overview
The hearing featured several notable exchanges. Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ) questioned Professor Somin on the 1879 case *Reynolds v. United States*, attempting to distinguish between protected religious belief and prohibited religious practice (such as polygamy or domestic violence). Rep. Raskin confronted Mr. Spencer regarding his work being cited by Anders Breivik, the perpetrator of the 2011 Norway attacks, to illustrate how anti-Muslim rhetoric can fuel extremism. Meanwhile, Rep. Brandon Gill (R-TX-26) cited 2024 Heritage Foundation survey data claiming that 39% of U.S. Muslims support the implementation of Sharia in the U.S., a statistic Professor Somin questioned based on potential methodological flaws.
The impact of Sharia on specific sectors was a recurring theme. In education, Rep. Roy and Ms. Krista Schild, Texas State Director for RAIR Foundation USA, discussed the influence of Qatari grants in the Austin and Houston Independent School Districts. In the legal sector, the discussion focused on the proliferation of Islamic tribunals and the arbitration of family law matters. Ms. Schild also alleged the existence of "no-go zones" in the Dallas-Fort Worth area and cited the "civilization jihad" plan mentioned in the 1991 Muslim Brotherhood explanatory memorandum.
Key Testimony
Several organizations were frequently mentioned throughout the testimony, including the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which Republicans linked to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Qatar Foundation. Rep. Mark Harris (R-NC-8) highlighted a specific case of radicalization in North Carolina involving an 18-year-old plotting an ISIS-inspired attack, using it to question the adequacy of current vetting procedures. Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-WI-6) also raised concerns about the lack of vetting for the approximately 85,000 to 200,000 Afghan refugees brought to the U.S. by the Biden administration, citing criminal incidents at Fort McCoy.
Overview
The hearing concluded without a consensus on legislative action. Chairman Roy allowed five legislative days for additional materials to be submitted for the record. The proceedings underscored a fundamental disagreement over whether Sharia should be viewed as a protected religious practice or a subversive political ideology, a debate that remains central to current immigration and national security policy discussions.
Transcript
[Video plays.]
Read the full transcript
Starting at $350/mo
- Full hearing transcripts
- Speaker timestamps with video verification
- Organization & competitor mentions
- Same-day delivery
- Personalized summaries
30-day money-back guarantee on all paid plans.
Not ready to subscribe?
Get a free daily digest with hearing summaries ranked by relevance.
Already have an account? Log in
