Texas Republican Primary Proposition 10 (March 2026), “Texas Should Prohibit Sharia Law” A Complete Factual Guide

Texas Republican primary voters on March 3, 2026 voted on Proposition 10 — a non-binding advisory measure stating: “Texas should prohibit Sharia Law.” All of the propositions on the GOP ballot passed by significant margins, including Proposition 10. The measure does not create law, does not change any statute, and does not carry any immediate legal force. What it does do is signal Republican primary voter priorities ahead of the 2027 Texas legislative session — and it lands in the middle of an already heated political and legal debate over Islam, civil rights, and constitutional limits in Texas.

This article explains what Proposition 10 is, what it is not, the political forces driving it, what Texas law already says on this subject, what the Constitution says, and what happens next.

Quick Facts

• Full text: “Texas should prohibit Sharia Law”
• Ballot: 2026 Texas Republican Primary — March 3, 2026
• Type: Non-binding advisory proposition — not a vote to create or change law
• Approved by: State Republican Executive Committee, September 6, 2025 — 59-3 vote, with two abstentions
• Result: Passed by a significant margin in Montgomery County with all 121 precincts reporting; statewide certification pending
• Legal effect: None — no statute is created, amended, or repealed by this vote
• What happens next: Results feed into the Texas GOP platform at the June 2026 convention and may guide legislation in the 2027 legislative session

What Proposition 10 Actually Is — and Is Not

The Republican Party of Texas describes the propositions as an “opinion poll” and not a policy referendum. Voters simply vote “yes” or “no” on statements and are not voting to make or change law.

Unlike propositions on a Texas general election ballot — which are used as referenda on proposed amendments to the state constitution — primary ballot propositions are submitted by the respective parties. The parties then use the responses to gauge support for various measures when they formulate platforms at their biennial conventions.

Since these measures are non-binding, their outcome will not trigger any instant policy shifts. Rather, they act as a litmus test for the priorities of Republican primary voters. The results are expected to influence priorities debated at the Texas GOP convention in June 2026 and guide lawmakers during the 2027 legislative session.

Proposition 10 does not define “Sharia Law,” does not specify what conduct it would prohibit, does not name any enforcement mechanism, and does not identify which branch of government would act on it. Its language is a statement of political intent, not a legal text.

What Is Sharia Law? 

Understanding this debate requires understanding what Sharia actually is — and what it is not.

Sharia (meaning “path to the water” in Arabic) refers to Islamic religious guidance drawn from the Qur’an and Sunnah — the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad. The term encompasses moral values, religious practices, and ethical principles governing Muslim life.

The term “Sharia law” is a misnomer because Sharia is not actually a law or a universally defined legal code, but a set of guiding principles for living a moral life set out in the Quran. Muslims may voluntarily follow Sharia principles in their personal lives — governing prayer schedules, dietary practices, fasting, charitable giving, and personal conduct — in the same way that observant Jews follow halakha or devout Christians follow canon law principles in their personal lives.

Sharia law cannot override or replace U.S. civil law under any circumstances. The First Amendment’s Establishment Clause prohibits any religious tradition — including Sharia, Christian canon law, or Jewish halakha — from becoming the basis of laws that apply to everyone. While Muslims can voluntarily follow Sharia principles in personal matters like prayer, fasting, and private contracts, U.S. courts enforce constitutional protections and civil law supremacy when religious principles conflict with American legal standards.

What Texas Law Already Says — The American Laws for American Courts Statute

Supporters of Proposition 10 sometimes argue that no law currently bans Sharia in Texas. The legal reality is more nuanced.

Texas has already signed into law House Bill 45, known as American Laws for American Courts (ALAC), prohibiting the use of any foreign law in the state’s courts, specifically in family cases involving marriage or parent-child relationship matters. The law took effect September 1, 2017, making Texas the twelfth state to enact ALAC. The other states are Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Washington.

This position is also reflected in an Attorney General opinion affirming that contracts violating Texas public policy cannot be enforced.

In short: Texas courts already cannot apply any foreign religious or legal code — including Sharia — in ways that conflict with the U.S. or Texas Constitution, or with existing state law. What supporters of Proposition 10 argue is that the current law does not go far enough and that a more explicit prohibition is needed.

Related article: US Labor and Employment Law in 2026, What Employees and Employers Need to Know Right Now

The Political Context: Governor Abbott’s Prior Actions

Proposition 10 does not emerge in a vacuum. It is the latest chapter in a sustained campaign by Texas Republican leadership targeting Islamic institutions and practices in the state.

Texas has taken a lead on this issue nationally. Governor Abbott has taken multiple actions, including designating certain Muslim groups as foreign terrorist organizations, launching criminal investigations, and calling on the U.S. Treasury Department to take action. A Texas mayor has banned Sharia law, and the state comptroller has held school choice applications submitted by private schools with potential connections to foreign adversaries.

Abbott also ordered the Texas Department of Public Safety to launch criminal investigations of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), accusing it of trying to “forcibly impose Sharia law.” CAIR then filed a lawsuit against Abbott in federal court.

Abbott’s proclamation cited a new law that gave him more power to ban property ownership by governmental entities, companies, and individuals from countries named in annual threat assessment reports prepared by the director of national security.

CAIR’s lawsuit argues that Governor Abbott violated due process, violated the First Amendment, and misused Texas law to silence dissent in violation of the Constitution. That lawsuit remains pending as of this writing.

University of Houston political science lecturer Nancy Sims noted that “Sharia Law is very big in Republican commercials this spring. You can see that these propositions that got on the ballot are also appearing in Republican campaign themes.”

What Supporters of Proposition 10 Argue

Tony Perkins, program host of Washington Watch, argued that unlike Judaism and Christianity, Islam is a political and legal system all rolled into one and that Sharia Law is part of it.

Frank Gaffney, president for Institute for the American Future, called Proposition 10 “arguably the most important single measure being voted on in the course of this primary — that’s for sure — and maybe across the country because it offers the people an opportunity to say, ‘I don’t want to go that way. I do not want our country, our country’s various states, to submit to Sharia.'”

A Texas congressional Sharia Caucus has also formed. The “Save Texas, Save America Campaign” formed specifically to build support for banning Sharia starting in Texas.

Advocates point to a non-binding Islamic tribunal operating in McKinney, Texas, arguing it imposes Sharia law in conflict with both the U.S. and Texas Constitutions. They further argue that specific Sharia practices — such as punishment for dissent, forced marriage, underage marriage, and female genital mutilation — violate existing state and federal law and require explicit prohibition.

What Critics and Legal Experts Argue

The constitutional, legal, and civil rights objections to formal Sharia-prohibition legislation are substantial and well-documented.

The Constitution already prohibits religious legal supremacy. The First Amendment Establishment Clause — “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” — prohibits government from establishing any religion as the legal foundation for laws binding on all citizens. This cuts both ways: the government cannot impose Christianity on non-Christians, and it cannot impose Sharia on non-Muslims. No religious legal code can legally supersede U.S. civil law.

Oklahoma’s explicit Sharia ban was struck down in federal court. The most extreme example occurred when Oklahoma voters approved a constitutional amendment explicitly banning Sharia and the application of international law. When the law was challenged in court, a federal judge blocked it. The court concluded that by singling out Islam for unfavorable treatment in state courts, the law likely violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The court rejected the state’s argument that the amendment was necessary, explaining that “Appellants do not identify any actual problem the challenged amendment seeks to solve. Indeed, they admitted that they did not know of even a single instance where an Oklahoma court had applied Sharia law.”

The American Bar Association has formally opposed these measures. The American Bar Association opposes “federal or state laws that impose blanket prohibitions on consideration or use by courts or arbitral tribunals of the entire body of law or doctrine of a particular religion,” adding that “American courts will not apply Sharia or other rules that are contrary to our public policy, including rules that are incompatible with our notions of gender equality.”

University law professors have raised First and Fourteenth Amendment concerns. Emily Berman, a professor at the University of Houston Law Center, said that limiting property purchases or civic activities based on viewpoints and religious affiliation could prove problematic under the First Amendment and the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. “What is the motivation of these designations? Is it about their religious views? Is it about their viewpoints on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which would be another First Amendment red flag? You can’t discriminate on the basis of someone’s viewpoint.”

Muslim civil rights organizations reject the framing entirely. Murtaza Sutarwalla, president of the Muslim Bar Association of Houston, rejected Abbott’s “repeated claims that Sharia law is banned in Texas,” and CAIR has consistently stated that Muslims may look to Sharia for personal religious practice, but Sharia does not override U.S. or state law.

The broader national campaign has been documented as largely symbolic. Since 2010, 201 anti-Sharia law bills have been introduced in 43 states. One of the movement’s own architects — David Yerushalmi — admitted: “If this thing passed in every state without any friction, it would have not served its purpose. The purpose was heuristic — to get people asking this question, ‘What is Shariah?'”

The Voluntary Religious Arbitration Question

One specific argument made by Proposition 10 supporters deserves direct attention — the existence of Islamic mediation panels or tribunals.

There are no Sharia courts in Texas in any legal sense — only voluntary Muslim mediation panels operating under the same framework used by Jewish beth din courts and Christian arbitration services.

In a North Texas family law case, an Islamic prenuptial agreement called for disputes to be resolved under religious law. The central legal question courts must weigh is how to balance religious arbitration against constitutional and statutory protections.

Under existing U.S. law, parties to a contract may voluntarily agree to resolve disputes through religious arbitration — including Islamic, Jewish, or Christian arbitration bodies — as long as the outcome does not violate public policy, constitutional rights, or existing statutes. Courts can and do refuse to enforce arbitration outcomes that cross those lines. This framework applies equally to all religions.

Texas’s Legislative History on This Issue

Texas has tried and failed to pass explicit Sharia-specific legislation before.

In 2011, Texas Representative Leo Berman introduced HJR 57 — the Texas “Sharia Law Amendment” — which would have prohibited a Texas court from “enforcing, considering, or applying a religious or cultural law.” It was referred to the Texas House State Affairs Committee in February 2011 but never advanced further and did not appear on the November 2011 ballot.

The 2017 ALAC statute — American Laws for American Courts — succeeded precisely because it avoided naming any religion specifically, instead using the broader “foreign law” framing that courts have been more willing to uphold. Whether 2027 legislation following Proposition 10’s passage takes the narrower ALAC approach or attempts to name Sharia explicitly will be a critical legal drafting question.

Most statutes avoid naming Sharia specifically, instead prohibiting courts from applying “foreign law” that violates constitutional rights. Oklahoma’s original 2010 ballot measure explicitly banning Sharia was ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge in 2013, prompting the state to amend the law to reference foreign law generally.

What Happens Next — From Ballot to Legislation

Republican ballots are a little more important in Texas’s political environment because Republicans control the state legislature and all state offices currently. When their party votes in some of these referendums on their ballot, they wind up in the party platform — but they also may lead to legislation.

The expected pathway from Proposition 10’s passage to any formal law involves several distinct steps:

• June 2026 Texas GOP Convention — delegates debate and formalize the Republican Party platform. Propositions that pass with strong margins typically become platform planks, signaling legislative priorities.
• 2027 Texas Legislative Session — the 90th legislative session begins January 11, 2027. Legislators sympathetic to Proposition 10 may introduce formal bills. The precise language will determine whether the legislation targets “foreign law” broadly (more constitutionally defensible) or names Sharia explicitly (high risk of federal court challenge).
• Federal constitutional scrutiny — any legislation that singles out Islam by name will immediately face challenge under the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause and the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, following the precedent set by Oklahoma’s struck-down 2010 amendment.
• Governor’s signature — Governor Abbott has already demonstrated strong support for anti-Sharia executive action; he would likely sign related legislation if it reached his desk.

The purpose of the ballot propositions is to measure voter support to guide the party’s legislative interests in 2027, which will be voted on at the June 2026 convention.

What This Means for Texas Muslims

CAIR’s national deputy director Edward Ahmed Mitchell stated: “Greg Abbott’s anti-Muslim bigotry now turned into government policy is endangering the safety of Texas Muslims.” CAIR has said the governor’s actions are increasing the risk of violence against its employees and Texas Muslims in general.

Political observers have noted that the campaign transforms ordinary Muslim civic life — operating nonprofits, building housing developments, running mediation services — into a perceived security threat, even without evidence of any actual legal violation.

Kenneth Williams, who teaches constitutional and civil rights law at Texas Tech University, warned: “If the governor is allowed to proceed against this organization, there’s a possibility that the governor could also proceed against other organizations with which the governor does not approve — and so that should be a concern to all Texans.”

Frequently Asked Questions

Did Proposition 10 pass on March 3, 2026?

 Yes. With all 121 Montgomery County precincts reporting, Proposition 10 — along with all other Republican primary propositions — passed by a significant margin. Statewide results are pending certification by the Texas Elections Commission.

Does Proposition 10 change any law? 

No. The Republican Party of Texas describes the propositions as an “opinion poll” and not a policy referendum. Voters voted “yes” or “no” on a statement — they were not voting to make or change any law. No statute is created, amended, or repealed by this vote.

Is Sharia Law currently used in Texas courts?

 No. Texas already enacted the American Laws for American Courts statute in 2017, prohibiting the use of any foreign law in state courts in family cases involving marriage or parent-child relationships. Furthermore, U.S. constitutional law already prevents any religious legal code from superseding federal or state law.

Could a formal Texas Sharia ban survive a constitutional challenge? 

Oklahoma’s constitutional amendment explicitly banning Sharia was blocked by a federal judge who concluded it violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause by singling out Islam for unfavorable treatment. Any Texas statute that explicitly names Sharia would face the same challenge and the same precedent.

What is the difference between personal religious practice and Sharia as a legal system?

 Muslims can voluntarily follow Sharia principles in personal matters like prayer, fasting, and private contracts. U.S. courts enforce constitutional protections and civil law supremacy when religious principles conflict with American legal standards. Personal religious observance is fully protected by the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause.

What do legal experts say about these measures overall? 

The American Bar Association opposes blanket prohibitions on consideration of any religion’s legal doctrine by courts or arbitral tribunals, noting that American courts will not apply Sharia or other rules contrary to public policy regardless of whether a specific statute addresses it.

When could formal legislation emerge from this vote? 

The results are expected to influence priorities debated at the Texas GOP convention in June 2026 and guide lawmakers during the 2027 legislative session. The 90th Texas Legislative Session begins January 11, 2027.

Written by AllAboutLawyer.com Editorial Team

Last Updated: March 5, 2026

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Legal claims and outcomes depend on specific facts and applicable law. Statements of political figures and advocacy organizations are attributed to their sources and do not represent the views of AllAboutLawyer.com. For advice regarding a particular situation, consult a qualified attorney.

About the Author

Sarah Klein, JD, is a licensed attorney and legal content strategist with over 12 years of experience across civil, criminal, family, and regulatory law. At All About Lawyer, she covers a wide range of legal topics — from high-profile lawsuits and courtroom stories to state traffic laws and everyday legal questions — all with a focus on accuracy, clarity, and public understanding.
Her writing blends real legal insight with plain-English explanations, helping readers stay informed and legally aware.
Read more about Sarah