The Preserving a Sharia-Free America Act Violates Constitutional Rights and Is Counterproductive
Source: Ilya Somin. "Oral Testimony at the House Judiciary Subcommittee Hearing on the "Preserving a Sharia-Free America Act"." February 12, 2026. reason.com
The Gist
A law professor argues that a proposed bill to deport Muslims who follow Islamic law is unconstitutional, harmful to innocent people, and actually makes America less safe. He says the bill violates religious freedom and that most Muslim immigrants aren't trying to impose their beliefs on others.
Conclusion
The proposed 'Preserving a Sharia-Free America Act' should be rejected because it violates the Constitution, harms innocent people, and undermines national security
Premises
- The Act violates the First Amendment's Free Exercise and Free Speech clauses by targeting people based on their religious beliefs
- Mass deportation of Muslim immigrants would harm thousands of innocent people who pose no threat to American society
- The legislation would damage US national security by providing propaganda victories to radical Islamist terrorists
- Islam and Sharia law are not monolithic - there is widespread internal disagreement among Muslims about religious interpretation, similar to other faiths
- Most Muslim immigrants in the US are not trying to impose Sharia on non-Muslims or establish theocracy, and many are themselves refugees from Islamist oppression
- Existing constitutional protections (First Amendment prohibitions on religious establishment and discrimination) already address legitimate concerns without requiring mass deportation
- Even supporters of the bill at the hearing failed to defend it, instead focusing on unrelated issues that don't require deportation to address
Assumptions
- Constitutional rights should be protected even when applied to unpopular groups
- Religious diversity within faiths is normal and should be recognized in policy-making
- National security is better served by upholding constitutional principles than by discriminatory policies
- Less restrictive means can address legitimate concerns about foreign legal judgments