Sharia law vs. the US Constitution: Texas is a warning America can't ignore

By Brad Brandon, Op-ed contributor Wednesday, September 23, 2026

America has a choice to make before the choice is made for us. We can decide now that the Constitution is the final authority in this country — or we can wait until competing systems of authority become so deeply established that reclaiming that principle becomes far more difficult.

This isn't hypothetical. It is already a subject of congressional hearings, state investigations and public debate.

In February, a House Judiciary Subcommittee examined the relationship between political Islam, Sharia law, and the Constitution. A second hearing followed in May, with lawmakers considering safeguards to ensure that American courts cannot enforce religious or foreign-law decisions that violate constitutional rights. Twelve states have passed legislation to ban or restrict Sharia law in order to preempt this potential infiltration.

Texas is one of those states and has taken this issue seriously. In a recent speech, Governor Greg Abbott stated, “We are not waiting on Washington, DC. We will fully ban Sharia Law in Texas.” He directed state officials to investigate entities in North Texas that appeared to be operating as “Sharia tribunals.” Attorney General Ken Paxton subsequently launched an investigation into the Dallas-based Islamic Tribunal over allegations that it represented its decisions as final judgments with the approval of the Texas judicial system.

Why does this matter?

Because I have spent years working in Northern Nigeria, where I have seen firsthand what happens when religious ideology becomes a political system, and institutions designed to serve a community gradually become instruments for political power.

The process does not necessarily begin with a revolution. It often begins quietly.

First comes the social base: religious organizations, schools, charities and community networks. Then comes political organization. Advocacy groups form. Coalitions deepen. Leaders emerge. Next comes institutional influence — representation in government, education, courts and other centers of authority. Then comes the campaign to change the law, so that religious principles increasingly shape family law, education, criminal law or other areas of public life. Eventually comes political power. And where Islamism succeeds, the ultimate objective can be constitutional change: making Sharia a source of legislation, expanding religious courts or establishing Islam as a governing framework. Finally comes consolidation, when institutions are reorganized to preserve a new political order.

The point is not that every Muslim follows this path. They do not. Muslims, like Americans of every faith, have the right to practice their religion freely. Private religious counseling and voluntary arbitration are not the issue.

The issue is parallel sovereignty.

There is a profound difference between practicing a religion, voluntarily seeking religious guidance, and creating an institution that claims authority over disputes that belong to the state. What happens when a religious institution claims authority beyond voluntary participation, or when American courts are asked to enforce religious decisions that conflict with constitutional protections? What happens when advocates argue that American law should eventually yield to a religious legal system?

Those aren't theoretical questions anymore. And the danger is the gradual normalization of institutions exercising authority they were never given.

America has not become a Sharia-governed nation. That is precisely why this moment matters. The question is whether we will establish the constitutional boundary before competing authority becomes entrenched.

That boundary should not be difficult to define. Americans are free to worship, organize and voluntarily seek religious counsel. No religious institution has the authority to supersede American law.

Consider what happened recently in Fairfax County, Virginia. A 9/11 teaching guide from Fairfax County Public Schools tells teachers to prepare for “anti-Muslim and anti-Middle Eastern rhetoric,” create “safe spaces for Muslim and Middle Eastern students,” and, under a list of “Don’ts,” specifically says not to “associate the 9/11 attacks with Islam or Muslims” or “center the extremists or the acts of the extremists.” Protecting Muslim students from discrimination is right and necessary. But when teaching 9/11 means deliberately avoiding the extremists who carried out the attacks, we should ask what else is being left out. According to Fox News’ review, only about 15% of the six-page guide provides specific 9/11 instruction, while roughly half focuses on “safe spaces” for Muslim and Middle Eastern students.

Documents associated with the Muslim Brotherhood's North American activities, including the 1991 Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America, describe a long-term effort to establish Islamic institutions and build the infrastructure for an Islamic social structure in the West. That history demonstrates that institutional influence can be pursued as a long-term project rather than an immediate seizure of political power.

That doesn't mean every Muslim organization in America is part of such a project. And it doesn't mean every Muslim American shares this goal. The issue isn't whether an American Muslim can privately follow Sharia law. It is whether an American court can give a Sharia-based decision the full force and weight of American law.

As Americans, we must distinguish between religious freedom and political Islam. We should defend the first without surrendering the second.

The Constitution guarantees Americans the freedom to worship. It does not guarantee any religious institution the authority to govern. America has an opportunity to address this while it is still a problem of competing authority rather than surrendered sovereignty.

We should take that opportunity now — while the choice is still ours to make.