TEXAS GOVERNOR GREG ABBOTT ORDERS CRACKDOWN ON GROUPS ALLEGEDLY OPERATING SHARIA COURTS

Abbott has taken an increasingly aggressive position on the issue, insisting that legal disputes in Texas must ultimately be governed by the United States Constitution, federal law and Texas law.

In November 2025, Abbott sent a letter to district attorneys and sheriffs in North Texas, the Texas Attorney General and the Texas Department of Public Safety calling for investigations into entities he alleged may be masquerading as legal courts.

Abbott said some organisations in Dallas and Collin counties were allegedly presenting themselves as courts with judges and issuing decisions based on Islamic law.

“Legal disputes in Texas must be decided based on American law rooted in the fundamental principles of American due process,” Abbott said.

The governor argued that constitutional protections for religious freedom do not give religious organisations authority to override state or federal law.

TEXAS DPS ORDERED TO INVESTIGATE

Abbott subsequently directed the Texas Department of Public Safety to investigate potential criminal activity involving the Muslim Brotherhood and the Council on American Islamic Relations.

The governor said investigators should also examine individuals or organisations allegedly attempting to unlawfully impose Sharia law.

Texas authorities say their objective is to investigate potential violations of existing state and federal laws rather than prohibit private religious beliefs.

ATTORNEY GENERAL TARGETS ISLAMIC TRIBUNAL

The campaign expanded in April 2026 when Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton demanded records from a Dallas based organisation known as Islamic Tribunal.

Paxton's office accused the organisation of potentially misleading Texans about the legal authority of its decisions and launched an investigation to determine whether Texas law had been violated.

The Attorney General's office said religious institutions have First Amendment protections allowing them to govern internal religious affairs.

However, Paxton argued that those protections would not permit an organisation to falsely present itself as a government court or issue decisions claiming governmental authority.

The allegations remain under investigation and do not themselves establish criminal wrongdoing.

RELIGIOUS ARBITRATION IS NOT AUTOMATICALLY ILLEGAL

The legal distinction is important.

Religious communities in the United States can voluntarily use religious principles to resolve certain private disputes.

Jewish communities have long used Beth Din tribunals, while Christian organisations also use religious mediation and arbitration.

Muslims can similarly participate voluntarily in religious mediation or arbitration.

Such arrangements cannot override criminal law, constitutional protections or other applicable state and federal laws.

A private religious tribunal also cannot simply replace a Texas court or exercise governmental authority it does not possess.

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM DEBATE

Abbott's actions have generated a broader political argument about religious freedom.

Supporters say Texas is protecting the principle that the state must have one legal framework and that no private organisation should be permitted to operate as a parallel government court.

Critics argue that government investigations must distinguish carefully between genuinely unlawful conduct and constitutionally protected religious arbitration.

The First Amendment protects Muslims in the same way it protects Christians, Jews and members of other religions.

The central legal question is therefore not whether Islamic beliefs can exist in Texas.

They are constitutionally protected.

The question is whether any organisation has unlawfully claimed governmental judicial authority, violated state or federal law or attempted to enforce decisions beyond what private religious arbitration legally permits.

Texas authorities say those are the activities they intend to investigate.

VNTV