H.Hrg.119

1[House Hearing, 119 Congress]2[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]34                   SHARIA-FREE AMERICA: WHY POLITICAL5                 ISLAM & SHARIA LAW ARE INCOMPATIBLE WITH6                          THE U.S. CONSTITUTION7=======================================================================89                                HEARING1011                               BEFORE THE1213                 SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION AND14                             LIMITED GOVERNMENT1516                                 OF THE1718                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY1920                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES2122                    ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS2324                             SECOND SESSION2526                               __________2728                       TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 20262930                               __________3132                           Serial No. 119-553334                               __________3536         Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary37[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]3839               Available via: http://judiciary.house.gov4041                               __________4243                       U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE4462-813                      WASHINGTON : 202645=======================================================================4647                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY4849                        JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Chair5051DARRELL ISSA, California             JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland, Ranking52ANDY BIGGS, Arizona                      Member53TOM McCLINTOCK, California           JERROLD NADLER, New York54THOMAS P. TIFFANY, Wisconsin         ZOE LOFGREN, California55THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky              STEVE COHEN, Tennessee56CHIP ROY, Texas                      HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,57SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin              Georgia58BEN CLINE, Virginia                  ERIC SWALWELL, California59LANCE GOODEN, Texas                  TED LIEU, California60JEFFERSON VAN DREW, New Jersey       PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington61TROY E. NEHLS, Texas                 J. LUIS CORREA, California62BARRY MOORE, Alabama                 MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania63KEVIN KILEY, California              JOE NEGUSE, Colorado64HARRIET M. HAGEMAN, Wyoming          LUCY McBATH, Georgia65LAUREL M. LEE, Florida               DEBORAH K. ROSS, North Carolina66WESLEY HUNT, Texas                   BECCA BALINT, Vermont67RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina          JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois68GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin            SYDNEY KAMLAGER-DOVE, California69BRAD KNOTT, North Carolina           JARED MOSKOWITZ, Florida70MARK HARRIS, North Carolina          DANIEL S. GOLDMAN, New York71ROBERT F. ONDER, Jr., Missouri       JASMINE CROCKETT, Texas72DEREK SCHMIDT, Kansas73BRANDON GILL, Texas74MICHAEL BAUMGARTNER, Washington7576                                 ------7778        SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION AND LIMITED GOVERNMENT7980                         CHIP ROY, Texas, Chair8182TOM McCLINTOCK, California           MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania,83THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky                  Ranking Member84HARRIET HAGEMAN, Wyoming             STEVE COHEN, Tennessee85WESLEY HUNT, Texas                   PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington86GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin            JOE NEGUSE, Colorado87MARK HARRIS, North Carolina          BECCA BALINT, Vermont88ROBERT F. ONDER, Jr., Missouri       SYDNEY KAMLAGER-DOVE, California89BRANDON GILL, Texas                  DANIEL S. GOLDMAN, New York9091               CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Majority Staff Director92                ARTHUR EWENCZYK, Minority Staff Director93                            C O N T E N T S9495                              ----------9697                       Tuesday, December 16, 202598                           OPENING STATEMENTS99100                                                                   Page101102The Honorable Chip Roy, Chair of the Subcommittee on the103  Constitution and Limited Government from the State of Texas....     1104The Honorable Mary Gay Scanlon, Ranking Member of the105  Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government from106  the State of Pennsylvania......................................     5107The Honorable Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member of the Committee on108  the Judiciary from the State of Maryland.......................     7109110                               WITNESSES111112Stephen M. Gele, Chair, Pelican Institute, Partner, Bivalacqua,113  Gele & Ellis114  Oral Testimony.................................................    10115  Prepared Testimony.............................................    13116Robert Spencer, Shillman Fellow, David Horowitz Freedom Center117  Oral Testimony.................................................    33118  Prepared Testimony.............................................    35119Krista Shield, Texas State Director, RAIR Foundation USA120  Oral Testimony.................................................    65121  Prepared Testimony.............................................    67122Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, George Mason University123  Oral Testimony.................................................    77124  Prepared Testimony.............................................    79125126          LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC. SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING127128All materials submitted by the Subcommittee on the Constitution129  and Limited Government, for the record.........................   106130131Materials submitted by the Honorable Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member132  of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Maryland,133  for the record134    An article entitled, ``Killings in Norway Spotlight Anti-135        Muslim Thought in U.S.,'' Jul. 24, 2011, The New York136        Times137    A copy of 18 U.S.C. 116--Female genital mutilation, Cornell138        Law School139    An article entitled, ``45% of Americans Say U.S. Should Be a140        `Christian Nation,' '' Oct. 27, 2022, Pew Research Center141Materials submitted by the Honorable Mary Gay Scanlon, Ranking142  Member of the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited143  Government from the State of Pennsylvania, for the record144    An article entitled, ``No `Sharia Law' Is Coming to Texas,''145        Oct. 26, 2025, CATO Institute146    An article entitled, ``Republicans go all-in on `Sharia law'147        attacks ahead of Texas primary,'' Jan. 26, 2026, Politico148    An article entitled, ``Without a Border `Invasion,' Texas GOP149        Turns to an Old Enemy, Islam,'' Feb. 10, 2026, The New150        York Times151    A statement to the Honorable Chip Roy, Chair of the152        Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government153        from the State of Texas, and the Honorable Mary Gay154        Scanlon, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on the155        Constitution and Limited Government from the State of156        Pennsylvania, from the Council on American-Islamic157        Relations, Feb. 10, 2026158159                                APPENDIX160161Materials submitted by the Honorable Mary Gay Scanlon, Ranking162  Member of the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited163  Government from the State of Pennsylvania, for the record164    A statement from the Interfaith Coalition Against Domestic165        and Sexual Violence, Feb.10, 2026166    A statement to the Honorable Chip Roy, Chair of the167        Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government168        from the State of Texas, and the Honorable Mary Gay169        Scanlon, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on the170        Constitution and Limited Government from the State of171        Pennsylvania, from multiple religions organizations, Mar.172        3, 2026173174                 QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES FOR THE RECORD175176Questions for Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, George Mason177  University, submitted by the Honorable Mary Gay Scanlon,178  Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on the Constitution and179  Limited Government from the State of Pennsylvania, for the180  record181    Response from Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, George Mason182        University183184                   SHARIA-FREE AMERICA: WHY POLITICAL185     ISLAM &SHARIA LAW ARE INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE U.S. CONSTITUTION186187                              ----------188189                       Tuesday, February 10, 2026190191                        House of Representatives192193        Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government194195                       Committee on the Judiciary196197                             Washington, DC198199    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:08 p.m., in200Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Hon. Chip Roy201[Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding.202    Present: Representatives Roy, McClintock, Hageman,203Grothman, Harris, Onder, Gill, Scanlon, Cohen, and Raskin.204    Also present: Representative Biggs of Arizona.205    Mr. Roy. The Subcommittee will come to order. Without206objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess at any207time. We welcome everyone to today's hearing on Sharia law in208America.209    I will now recognize myself for an opening statement.210    There's a movement afoot across the United States that211seeks to overthrow our legal system and the Constitution to212replace it with a foreign legal system that upends our American213way of life. It seeks to replace these foundational elements of214our constitutional order with Islamic law, known as Sharia.215    The principles of Sharia are at odds with the Constitution216and the laws of the United States, as Sharia fails to include217due process, treats non-Muslims as second-class citizens, and218prescribes barbaric punishments.219    All the while, polygamy, misguided corporal punishment for220perceived violations of Islam, and acts of violence and221terrorism on behalf of Sharia are permitted by its adherents.222Sharia encourages violence, silences dissent, rejects religious223freedom, and subjugates women and children.224    Let's be clear: This is not about having the freedom of225worshipping a religion of one's choosing, such as Islam, but226forcing a foreign legal code that is incompatible with our laws227and legal system, that provides unwanted consequences to the228American people. It's everything we have fought against for229more than 250 years.230    Thomas Jefferson recognized this problem at the beginning231of the 19th century when he confronted Islamists in the Barbary232Wars to keep trade lanes open and end Islamic religious233slavery.234    When envoys and future Presidents John Adams and Thomas235Jefferson inquired by what right the Islamic Barbary states236preyed on American shipping, enslaving both crews and237passengers, America's two foremost envoys were told by238Tripoli's Ambassador, quote,239240        It was written in the Koran, that all nations who should not241        have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was242        their right and duty to make war upon whoever they could find243        and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and244        that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to245        go to paradise.246247    While the rest is history, with American marines victorious248on the shores of Tripoli as their anthem rings, the American249people--this Congress--must recognize the same issue our250Founders identified and defeated over 200 years ago.251    The Islamists are forcing their legal code onto252nonbelievers by violence or the threat of it by any means253necessary. The same problem of radical Islam enforcing Sharia254has reared its head in the 21st century, this time using255different tactics to advance it across the United States.256    Some of you might think of Sharia as a 2010s buzzword. That257is wrong. Over the last few years, efforts to impose Sharia on258American communities have taken off, and nowhere more than in259my home State of Texas.260    In 2024, members of a Plano mosque sought to create their261own 402-acre Islamic enclave governed by Sharia within the262State of Texas. It was called the East Plano Islamic Center, or263EPIC. Thankfully, after advocacy by many in Texas, the Texas264State government has currently stymied it from advancing.265    The EPIC's leader, Yasir Qadhi, is a prominent imam with a266long history of involving himself in Islamist causes, openly267expressing hatred for Jews and support for Holocaust denial268ideas.269    Despite claims Qadhi renounced his earlier extremism and270antisemitism, in October 2016, Qadhi offered a defense of the271Taliban. Following the October 7th attacks by the terrorist272group Hamas, in which over 1,200 Israelis were murdered, Qadhi273declared he had, quote, ``the luxury of bluntly saying I am not274going to condemn the fight of an oppressed people.''275    However, the EPIC is only one example of Sharia taking root276in Texas. Shadow Islamic courts have also proliferated. One277Dallas tribunal, for example, purports to make final judgments278on legal disputes according to Islamic jurisprudence, placing279Sharia law above binding State and Federal law.280    Both EPIC cities and Islamic tribunals are repugnant to the281spirit of the Constitution, which guarantees religious freedom282and confirms that Federal law is supreme.283    We see further evidence of a Sharia movement with imams284making concerning claims. For example, in a recent video posted285on X this month, a Texas imam said the following:286287        Mamdani is victory. We didn't succeed to conquer Vienna by the288        sword for 200 years, and now it's 10 percent Muslims. We need289        to enlarge the Muslim population in America.290291    Sheikh Ustadh, an imam from the EPIC Mosque in Texas,292preaches regularly that jihad against the non-Muslims and293martyrdom is the highest cause of reward in Islam, and he294praises Hamas and other terror groups, espousing the following,295quote:296297        My brothers and sisters, we are going to die anyway, so why298        don't we aim to die as a shaheed.299300Shaheed is Arabic for witness, but used in Islamic context for301martyrdom on behalf of Allah.302    All this while the Muslim-observing population in Texas has303grown. For example, in 2000, there were 115,000 Muslims in304Texas. In 2020, the most recent data available, it's an305estimated 313,000, a 172 percent jump, and it's much greater306five years later.307    One can make the claim that not all devotees agree or308enforce with Sharia, but no one can deny the increase of Muslim309observers in Texas, many of whom likely harbor support for310Sharia's tenets. Moreover, Texas ranks third among U.S. States311in the number of mosques with 224 counted in 2020 and estimated312over 300 today.313    Let's look at immigration numbers from those who immigrate314from Muslim-majority countries, many of whom have settled in315Texas.316    Since 2002, after the September 11, 2001, terrorist317attacks, the United States has issued 4.6 million green cards,318or lawful permanent status, to nationals from Muslim-majority319nations, allowing them to remain here indefinitely.320    Some of these countries include Afghanistan, Bangladesh,321Cameroon, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya,322Malaysia, Mauritania, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia,323Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, and the list goes on and on.324    Put another way, there's been a 48 percent increase in325green cards to these countries from 2002-2023 after 9/11.326    We must take a sobering look at our immigration policies to327ensure we do not admit those who refuse to assimilate and try328to establish their own legal code in contravention of our laws.329All this is particularly true when one looks at Muslims in the330United States' view of Sharia and in what capacity it should331exist in our country.332    To give a nationwide perspective, a September 2024 survey333discovered the following about United States Muslims: Fifty334percent favored Sharia blasphemy law, making it illegal to show335a picture or cartoon of Muhammad; 46 percent were in favor to336form a Muslim political party; 39 percent supported broad337application of Sharia in the United States; 33 percent wanted338Islam declared as our national religion.339    A previous Pew study found 19 percent of American Muslims340believed suicide bombing on behalf of Islam should be341justified. These results should be troubling to every American.342    Additionally, Islamists and groups who adhere to Sharia343have tried to influence the Texas State education system to344drill Sharia into young minds. The Middle East nation Qatar has345been reported as Hamas' most important financial backer and346foreign ally. Qatar has provided $1.8 billion to the terrorist347group Hamas since 2012.348    During his first term in the White House, President Trump349fired off a series of posts that cast Qatar as facilitating,350quote, ``radical ideology.''351    That same year, former United States officials raised352concerns about Qatari support for terrorism. ``I don't know353instances in which Qatar aggressively goes after terrorist354finance networks of Hamas, Taliban, or Al-Qaeda,'' former355Defense Secretary Robert Gates stated.356    Taken together, the U.S. arm of the Doha-based and Qatari357state-supported Qatar Foundation, known as Qatar Foundation358International, claims its goal is to promote and provide359support for certifying, quote, ``teachers of Arabic and primary360and/or secondary, K-12, public/State-funded schools.''361    In Texas, QFI has directly funded Arabic language and362culture programs in several districts, raising questions about363the content and implications of such foreign-backed curricula364in public education.365    Here are examples.366    At the Manara Academy, a public charter school in Irving,367Texas, QFI-supported activities have included classroom368materials featuring maps of the Arab world that exclude Israel369entirely, replacing it with Palestine.370    Austin Independent School District received a $100,000371grant from QFI to launch a new Arabic language and culture372program funding teacher salaries and curriculum development and373instructional materials similar to what I just described.374    In 2015, Houston Independent School District obtained an375$85,000 grant to perpetuate those curricula.376    Texas A&M University has received over $197 million through377the Qatar National Research Fund for research contracts;378additional undisclosed funds estimated at over $100 million379routed through the Texas Engineering Experiment Station.380    In fact, it was just last year that A&M shuttered its Qatar381campus, which was being funded by the Qatar Foundation after it382faced significant concerns over foreign influence, national383security risks, and geopolitical ties.384    This subversion should shock every American's conscience.385    To better illustrate how pervasive this movement of radical386Islam and Sharia is in Texas, according to data compiled by the387Middle East Forum, of the 8,000-plus Islamic nonprofit388organizations in the United States, almost 650, or 10 percent,389are based in Texas.390    One of the major Islamic networks that operate in Texas is391the Qubits, which is tied to various Muslim Brotherhood392branches and Hamas.393    How about the Council on American-Islamic Relations'394influence in Texas, an Islamist organization that actively395associates with other Islamist and Sharia-supporting groups396like Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood?397    Three months ago, Governor Abbott designated CAIR as a398foreign terrorist and transnational criminal organization, and399for good reason. CAIR is listed as an unindicted coconspirator400in the 2007 Holy Land Foundation case, the largest terror401financing prosecution in United States history, a case centered402in Richardson, Texas.403    Additionally, Nabil Sadoun, a former Dallas resident and404CAIR board member, was deported to Jordan in 2010 and denied405reentry after the U.S. Government alleged, he had lied on406naturalization documents when he denied membership with Hamas407and the Muslim Brotherhood.408    These examples underscore CAIR's network of spreading409Sharia across Texas and the rest of the country. I'll end with410one more example in Texas.411    In September, video footage surfaced of an imam in Houston412going to convenience stores in Houston threatening to occupy if413the presumed Muslim store owners did not stop selling Haram414products: Alcohol, pork, lottery tickets, and other prohibited415items under Sharia.416    While some may attribute this as nonissue or benign, can417any of my colleagues point to individuals of other faiths whose418tenets demand this type of force--not opinion, but force--of419subservience to it.420    The overtaking by Sharia isn't limited to Texas; it's the421entire West. An Islamic cleric from New Jersey said of Muslims422overtaking the electoral system, mayors, school boards, and423local communities, quote:424425        Where is Mecca now? It's coming. Change is coming to America.426        And what is Allah saying? You are the best of nations. You're427        better than everybody else. Let's work toward that. Let's work428        toward a Muslim mayor.429430    This should be a stark warning to all Americans in all 50431States. If Texas falls, so does the Nation.432    These efforts to undermine the Constitution and demonstrate433political Islam have only been worsened by an unchecked434immigration system that admitted Sharia adherents into our435borders.436    Europe gives us a clear example of what will happen if we437don't close the door on Sharia now. In England and Wales, more438than 85 Sharia courts operate as a parallel Islamic government439depriving women of the rights they are entitled to under440British law.441    This year, the United Arab Emirates announced that it will442end all support for Emirati students studying in the U.K.443because of fears that students will be exposed to and join the444Muslim Brotherhood, which the UAE has declared a terrorist445organization, but the U.K. has not.446    As recent as last March, supporters of Sharia and other447Islamists have signaled their desire to advance jihad to other448nations. The Qatar-based International Union of Muslim449Scholars, a global network of Muslim scholars, called for,450quote, ``armed jihad'' against our friend and ally Israel.451    You might think the Sharia crisis is only in foreign452countries or has not yet arrived in the United States, but it453is here.454    Now is the time to protect every American's right to freely455practice their own faith and defend the supremacy of our shared456political system. Now, is the time to take decisive action as457our Founders did when confronted with the same issues today.458    Our Nation is founded on these ideas. Sharia law shares459none of these principles. By its Arabic definition, it is a460law, one pushed in our country for too long. It has no place in461American government, not now or ever.462    With that, I will now recognize the Ranking Member, Ms.463Scanlon, for her opening statement.464    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you, Chair Roy. Thank you to our465witnesses for being here today.466    When the Chair began his remarks with a concern about467forces trying to undermine our Constitution, I thought we might468have some unintended agreement; but, unfortunately, I don't469think that's the case.470    I can't think of anything more un-American than for Members471of Congress to be stoking fear and suspicion against fellow472Americans or anyone else on the explicit basis of their473religious beliefs.474    No matter what hysterical rhetoric we hear from our475Republican colleagues, our Constitution is clear. In this476country, people have the right to hold and express whatever477religious beliefs they choose, or none at all.478    You don't have to agree with those beliefs, but no one can479use the power of the government to punish or discriminate480against those who do. There's nothing foreign or suspicious481about that. In fact, there's nothing more American.482    Whether our colleagues actually believe the histrionic and483unsupported statements they've made about Muslims and Sharia484law, I'm not sure.485    It does appear that today's hearing is the most recent486expression of a cynical political ploy driven by the Texas487Republican primary where early voting starts in a week, and488Federal, State, and local candidates are trying to outdo one489another with anti-Sharia, anti-Muslim sentiment to score490political points.491    In the words of one Texas Republican political strategist:492``The Muslim community is the boogeyman for this cycle.''493    It seems the pretext for all this bluster is a proposed494real estate development in the Dallas suburbs led by the area's495growing Muslim population, but there's no evidence it has496anything to do with imposing Sharia law on nonbelievers of497Islam.498    There's no evidence it's a Sharia compound, as Texas499Republicans have alleged. The Trump Justice Department itself500closed an investigation into the development, finding no basis501for any violation of fair housing laws.502    As with so many things, Republicans bring to this503Committee, there's just no ``there'' there. Their view seems to504be, as long as they can scapegoat someone or something for505political gain, who cares, right?506    It's entirely clear they don't care at all whether fellow507Americans or others end up as collateral damage to the anti-508Muslim hatred and fear that's being stoked.509    In addition, this hearing appears designed to support510unconstitutional legislation. Last October, Chair Roy511introduced H.R. 5722, a bill that requires the government to,512among other things, deny any immigration benefit, visa,513immigration relief, or admission to the United States to any514foreign national who adheres to Sharia law. It similarly515directs the government to remove any foreign national already516here if the government determines that the person is an517adherent of Sharia law.518    This kind of government discrimination based purely on a519person's religious beliefs--not actions--is a blatant violation520of the First Amendment's free exercise and free speech521guarantees.522    To the extent that this bill implicitly favors Christianity523or another faith over Islam by singling out Islam for524government disfavor, it could violate both the spirit and the525letter of the Establishment Clause.526    By banning an adherent of Sharia law from the country, the527bill essentially targets any observant Muslim for government528discrimination.529    Sharia is concerned with guiding individual, personal530religious observance, not shaping national laws. Just as other531belief systems guide the adherents of those faiths, Sharia532guides Muslims in how to pray, dress, eat, or fast, and533includes rules about marriage, divorce, and the raising of534children.535    To say that an adherent of Sharia law should be excluded or536removed from the country is to say that all Muslims should be537excluded or removed from the country because of their religious538beliefs and observances.539    It goes against everything that America stands for, and we540need look no further for confirmation of that than one of our541Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson.542    In his autobiography, Jefferson wrote about what he543considered one of his proudest achievements: The drafting of544the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom of 1786, a precursor545to our First Amendment. He affirmed that religious freedom was546meant to encompass within the mantle of its protection people547of every denomination.548    In addition to expressing the fundamentally American belief549in the right to freely practice one's religion and to prevent550the government from favoring one religion over another,551Jefferson's writing specifically referenced, among other552faiths, believers in Islam, illustrating that from our553Republic's earliest days, Muslims were intended to be included554within the fabric of American life.555    The kind of demagoguery that this hearing represents is556unbecoming of this Subcommittee as one that is dedicated to the557Constitution and unbecoming of Members of Congress.558    Our attention should be focused on the Trump559Administration's repeated attacks on our constitutional order560and on Americans' rights, including the rights to free speech,561a free press, to peaceably assemble, to petition the government562for redress of grievances.563    We shouldn't be furthering ugly Islamophobia and justifying564a blatantly unconstitutional bill. It's shameful, and it's un-565American.566    I yield back.567    Mr. Roy. I will now recognize the Ranking Member, Mr.568Raskin, for his opening statement.569    Mr. Raskin. Thank you kindly, Mr. Chair. Thanks to the570witnesses for joining us today.571    We live in a country so great that we don't need the anti-572Sharia and anti-Muslim legislation our friends are proposing573today because our Constitution already forbids theocratic574imposition and establishment of any kind at all, whether it's575Christian White nationalism expressed in compulsory Ten576Commandments displays, an Orthodox Jewish set-aside school577district in New York, or any effort to replace secular public578law with a religious sectarian code, whether that's Sharia law,579the Analects of Confucius, the Torah, or anything else.580    This completely unnecessary hearing, another distraction581from the administration's coverup of the Epstein files and the582continuing brutal violation of people's constitutional rights583in Minneapolis, is a wonderful opportunity to remind ourselves584why our Constitution has three essential religion clauses and585why they do all of the work that people are talking about doing586today--the Establishment Clause, the Free Exercise Clause, and587the clause guaranteeing no religious test for public office.588    If you take time to study them, they will dispel all the589anxiety stirred up by legislation and agitation like this.590Anything legitimate that our colleagues want to say about591preventing the imposition of Sharia law in America is already592accomplished by the Establishment Clause. Everybody can rest593easy with Thomas Jefferson's wall of separation between church594and State that he identified in his famous letter to the595Danbury Baptists.596    Let's say someone proposes that all public schools and597government offices should post the core principles of Sharia598law, which I don't know what they are exactly. I looked online599and there were like four or five different versions. Let's take600one which said protecting religion, life, family, intellect,601property, and wealth. Another one said protecting honesty,602trustworthiness, mercy, humility, moderation, and honoring603promises.604    Whatever it is, if somebody said that we want to put Muslim605Sharia law up in all the schools and all the government606buildings, we would know very quickly how to deal with that607because we're not writing on a blank slate.608    In fact, we're in something of a furor over the laws609compelling the posting of the Ten Commandments right now that610were recently passed in Louisiana and Texas, but the Supreme611Court already struck down such Ten Commandment laws in 1980,612more than 45 years ago, in a case called Stone v. Graham, as a613plain violation of the Establishment Clause, which forbids614governmental endorsement of any religious text or any religious615doctrine.616    We don't even have one agreed-upon version of the Ten617Commandments. There's a Catholic version, there's a Lutheran618version, there's an Episcopalian version, and many others you619can find online. Which one would the government even endorse?620    Well, we've got Members of this body who vehemently621denounce Sharia law but also agree with Louisiana and Texas622that we should be posting the Ten Commandments of some623particular sectarian variety up in the schools.624    When this came up last Congress, there were members of the625Oversight Committee who said we should not only be putting the626Ten Commandments up in public schools but in Congress and all627public buildings. I told them the Ten Commandments have been628doing fine for millennia without an endorsement by the Freedom629Caucus in the House of Representatives.630    One guy told me, well, you know the Ten Commandments are631the basis for the Bill of Rights. I was kind of confused,632because there are ten in each one. I said, let's test the633proposition. The First Commandment says, ``Thou shall have no634other God before me.'' The First Amendment says, ``Congress635shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.'' I636don't think the First Commandment dictates the First Amendment.637    They wanted to go to the floor and have an up-or-down vote638on the Ten Commandments. I said, ``if we're going to vote on639the Ten Commandments in 2025, we should vote on each640commandment separately, and you shouldn't be allowed to vote on641any commandment you yourself have ever violated.'' That would642make more sense.643    In any event, this is res judicata, it's a closed case. The644government cannot endorse Muslim law, Jewish law, Christian645law, Methodist law, Baptist law, and none of it. We don't need646a special anti-Sharia law or a special anti-Sharia caucus. The647First Amendment already takes care of it.648    Well, anything illegitimate or discriminatory that our649colleagues would want to selectively impose on Muslims is650conversely a violation of the Free Exercise Clause and also651forbidden by the Constitutions.652    Muslims afraid that Congress might actually impose one of653these anti-Sharia bills--and, of course, they're just654introduced for political purposes, I don't think they have any655delusions that they're going to pass Congress--but, if you were656afraid of that, all you would have to do is read the case law657to understand why that can't be done.658    Check out, for example, a case with the wonderful name659Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah in 1992,660where the city of Hialeah in Florida selectively banned animal661rituals and sacrifice by people practicing the Santeria662religion.663    The Supreme Court shrewdly said, look, if you want to have664general laws that apply to every religion and to every citizen665that ban certain kinds of animal slaughter as cruel or unusual666or particularly harmful, then you can do it, but you can't pass667a law that targets a specific religion. Justice Kennedy called668it ``religious gerrymandering.''669    I don't know, Mr. Chair, about the East Plano Islamic670Center, which sounds like a compound with a mosque and some671residential and some restaurants and so on. Of course, those672kinds of religious compounds exist across America, whether673we're talking about the Amish, the Mennonites, Catholics, and674Jews, you name it. Lots of those exist.675    They do violate a separate principle if the government676actually gives, clothes them with secular power. I would agree677with you if they're giving them the power to set up their own678police force, their own school system, that would violate the679Supreme Court's decision in a case called Kiryas Joel Village680School District v. Grumet.681    That was in 1994, where New York created a separate public682school district for members of the Satmar Hasidic Jewish683religion in upstate New York. The Supreme Court said, ``No, you684can't endow a religious group with secular power.''685    If that's going on there, then I'm with you. If it's not686going on, then it's just a compound. If they own the property,687it's private property and they bought it, why would we want to688mess around with that? That sounds like you're just vilifying689and demonizing people because you don't like their religion,690and I know you wouldn't do that.691    Let me just say, finally, to uniquely blockade members of a692particular religion--here Islam--from participating in693government or politics, the kind of thing you do hear from694people calling for Ilhan Omar to be expelled from Congress or695deported from the country, that plainly violates Article VI,696Clause 3, of the Constitution, which says,697698        No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to699        any office or public trust under the United States.700701    Let's repose some of our faith and trust in the founders of702the Constitution, the Establishment Clause, the Free Exercise703Clause, the ban on religious tests for public office. They've704been working pretty well for America. They take care of every705single thing that anybody is talking about in this hearing.706    I do think we'd be much better off getting back to the work707of the country right now, trying to deal with the runaway708problem of inflation or to deal with the problem of the709continuing administration coverup of the Epstein files.710    Any of those, would be a little more valuable. Although711I've got to say, as a washed-up professor of constitutional712law, I do welcome the opportunity to remind people about the713First Amendment.714    I yield back to you, Chair Roy.715    Mr. Roy. I thank the Ranking Member for his opening716statement. Without objection, all other opening statements will717be included in the record. We will now introduce today's718witnesses.719    First, Mr. Stephen Gele. Mr. Gele is the Chair of the720Pelican Institute for Public Policy, a nonprofit organization721that works to reduce barriers to opportunity in Louisiana. He's722also a partner at the law firm of Bivalacqua, Gele & Ellis in723New Orleans.724    Mr. Robert Spencer. Mr. Spencer is a Shillman Fellow at the725David Horowitz Freedom Center, a nonprofit organization that726advocates for free societies. He's authored 32 books on Islam727and jihadism.728    Ms. Krista Schild. Ms. Schild is the Texas Director for the729RAIR Foundation, a grassroots organization that advocates for730American values. She has volunteered for decades for causes731that serve vulnerable populations, particularly women and732girls.733    Finally, Professor Ilya Somin. Professor Somin is a734Professor of Law at the Antonin Scalia Law School at George735Mason University. His research focuses on constitutional law,736property law, democratic theory, federalism, and migration.737    We thank our witnesses for appearing today, and we'll begin738by swearing you in. Would you please rise and raise your right739hand?740    Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the741testimony you are about to give is true and correct to the best742of your knowledge, information, and belief, so help you God?743    Let the record reflect that the witnesses have answered in744the affirmative.745    Thank you. Please, may be seated.746    Please know that your written testimony will be entered747into the record in its entirety. Accordingly, we ask that you748summarize your testimony in five minutes. I'll also remind each749of you to turn the microphone on in front of you so that750everybody can hear, and it will be inserted into the record.751    Mr. Gele, you may begin with your five minutes.752753              STATEMENT OF STEPHEN GELE754755    Mr. Gele. Thank you, Chair Roy, Ranking Member Scanlon, and756the Members of the Subcommittee, for inviting me here today to757discuss the phenomena of alternative, Sharia law-based758institutions; why the enforcement by American courts of decrees759issued by such institutions would be inconsistent with the760fundamental rights guaranteed by the United States761Constitution; and potential legal remedies to prevent such762violation of fundamental constitutional rights.763    I'm an attorney practicing in the State of Louisiana for764over 32 years. During the last 17 years, I've had the765opportunity, largely on behalf of the Center for Security766Policy, to research and study the interaction of foreign law,767including Islamic Sharia, with American law.768    The interaction of foreign law with American law and769American courts arises in four contexts: The enforcement of770foreign judgments by American courts via comity; the771application of foreign law in American courts through conflicts772of law; the enforcement of choice of law clauses in contracts;773the enforcement of forum selection clauses in contracts; the774enforcement of arbitration clauses in contracts; and the775transfer of lawsuits to foreign jurisdictions under the776doctrine of forum nonconveniens.777    In all these contexts, American courts--and even American778law enforcement--could be called on to enforce foreign law,779even though the enforcement of foreign law would violate780fundamental rights guaranteed by the United States781Constitution.782    I've studied the numerous occasions in which foreign783discordant law, including Sharia, has been litigated before784American courts. Although the vast majority of foreign law785applications are routine and do not violate American786constitutional norms, over the past half century the number of787cases adjudicating the application of discordant foreign law in788American State courts, including through arbitrations, has789steadily increased.790    The most prominent category of foreign law that has been791increasingly intruding on American courts is Islamic Sharia792law, a body of law which consistently violates American public793policy and fundamental constitutional rights, including the794right to equal protection, including equal protection based on795race, religion, and gender, the right of due process, freedom796of religion, and freedom of speech. Numerous tenets of Sharia797show bias against women, the LGBTQ community, non-Muslims,798former Muslims, and people designated as blasphemers.799    Courts in dozens of Muslim-majority nations, and some non-800Muslim nations, currently apply Sharia. In hundreds of reported801cases throughout the United States, litigants have attempted to802apply Sharia, often succeeding.803    Examples include the enforcement of foreign child custody804judgments or jurisdiction not based on the best interest of the805child, but instead based on gender or religious discrimination;806the transfer of cases to foreign countries whose courts807discriminate on gender or religion; the enforcement of Islamic808marriage contracts--dubbed mahrs--as prenuptial agreements;809talaq or other Sharia divorces; and increasingly, the creation810of arbitration tribunals applying Sharia law within the United811States.812    The law applied by such tribunals discriminates based on813gender and religion, and in cases of custody disputes does not814apply the best interests of the child standard. Those815arbitration tribunals also lack traditional American legal816formalities, lessening due817process.818    Furthermore, legislation over the past half century has819suppressed certain American legal protections against the820intrusion of discordant foreign law. Public policy exceptions821and common law rules have been overwritten by uniform acts822adopted by the States, sometimes related to foreign treaties.823    Some uniform acts now treat foreign country judgments like824sister State judgments essentially extending the Full Faith and825Credit Clause of the United States Constitution to foreign826nations.827    Moreover, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit828has explicitly held that foreign court orders are not subject829to the constraints of American constitutional law.830    Responding to this encroachment of discordant foreign law831into the United States, multiple efforts have been undertaken,832primarily at the State but also the Federal level, to address833discordant foreign law. The model statute, American Laws for834American Courts, passed, in some form, in 13 States to protect835fundamental constitutional rights against the infiltration of836foreign law, such as Sharia. Additional State acts and Federal837acts have also passed, including the SPEECH Act.838    Americans for over 250 years have toiled and suffered,839including spilling blood, toward guaranteeing fundamental840constitutional rights. No U.S. citizen should be denied the841fundamental liberties guaranteed in our constitutional842Republic. The intrusion of discordant foreign laws, including843Sharia, into the American legal system should be resisted.844    Thank you for your time, and I look forward to answering845your questions.846    [The prepared statement of Mr. Gele follows:]847    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]848849    Mr. Roy. Thank you, Mr. Gele, for your testimony. Mr.850Spencer, I remind you to turn your microphone on, and you have851five minutes.852853                  STATEMENT OF ROBERT SPENCER854855    Mr. Spencer. Thank you. The U.S. Constitution and Sharia856are incompatible, and the conflicts between the two legal857systems will grow as Sharia adherents increase in number in the858West. This fact has been obscured by misinformation about what859Sharia actually is.860    When the city of Keller, Texas, scrapped an anti-Sharia861resolution in January 2026, the Hamas-linked Council on862American-863Islamic Relations, CAIR, stated that,864865        Like Canon law for Catholics and Halacha for Orthodox Jews,866        Sharia refers to the rules that Muslims follow, including867        praying five times a day, fasting in Ramadan, giving in868        charity, and following the laws of the land in which they live.869870    If that were really all that Sharia were about, no871reasonable person would have any problem with it. CAIR doesn't872mention, however, that Sharia is inherently political,873supremacist, expansionist, and violent.874    Far from being the Islamophobic conspiracy theories of875CAIR's imagining, these are facts that Muslim authorities on876Sharia openly attest.877    The ``Reliance of the Traveller,'' ``Umdat al-Salik,'' is a878classic manual of Islamic sacred law, that is, Sharia. In 1990,879Dr. Taha Jabir al-Alwani, President of the International880Institute of Islamic Thought, as well as President of the Fiqh881Council of North America, stated that this Sharia manual was882useful as a textbook for teaching Islamic jurisprudence.883    The most prestigious institution of Islamic learning in the884world, al-Azhar in Cairo, stated in 1991 that the same manual885of Sharia ``conforms to the practice and faith of the orthodox886Sunni Community.''887    We read in this same guide to Sharia that ``jihad means war888against non-Muslims,'' and that it is a communal obligation on889the Muslim community. The object of this war is to establish890the hegemony of Sharia over the conquered land.891    For non-Muslims, this means an institutionalized, highly892codified second-class status that denies them basic rights.893Non-Muslims living under Sharia must ``pay the non-Muslim poll894tax,'' jizya, that is specified in the Koran Verse 929.895    This religion-based tax is designed to indicate, as the896renowned Islamic scholar Ibn Kathir explained, that the non-897Muslims who are paying it are ``disgraced, humiliated, and898belittled.''899    The non-Muslims in this State of disgrace and humiliation900are not allowed to build new houses of worship or repair old901ones, so their communities are in a perpetual State of decline.902They are forbidden to make any public display of their903religion. They're relegated to the most menial jobs in society,904for they are forbidden to hold authority over Muslims. If they905say anything critical about Islam, Muhammad, or the Koran,906they're liable to be put to death.907    From all this it is clear that Sharia is not simply Muslim908personal religious law. On the contrary, Sharia-based legal and909civic institutions are contrary to America's founding910principles and violate Federal law and the Constitution in911numerous particulars.912    The death penalty for mentioning what ``Reliance of the913Traveller'' terms as ``something impermissible about Allah, the914Prophet, or Islam,'' that is, blasphemy, is directly at915variance with First Amendment freedom of speech protections.916    The Islamic imperative to establish the hegemony of Sharia917as the law of the land, as it is today in the Islamic Republic918of Iran, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, is obviously at variance919with the First Amendment principle of nonestablishment of a920religion.921    Even in its personal aspects, Sharia does contradict U.S.922law. The Koran states that a man should ``beat'' a woman from923whom ``he fears disobedience,'' that's Chapter 4, Verse 34.924Domestic violence is a crime in U.S. law, but it is not a crime925under Sharia, and we have the example of what happens in926Britain. Britain began establishing Sharia courts several years927ago with the understanding that cases that came under the928purview of British criminal law would be referred to the929British criminal courts.930    Instead, the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal on its website931urged the Crown Prosecution Service to ``reconsider'' bringing932criminal charges against Muslim men who had been accused of933domestic violence.934    As this is in the Koran, same thing would happen here. If935Sharia is considered divine law, those Muslims who adhere to it936always consider that it takes precedence over the laws of the937land.938    Moreover, emigration to a new land to bring Sharia to it is939also an Islamic imperative. The Koran, in Chapter 4, Verse 100,940promises a reward from Allah to those who ``emigrate for the941sake of Allah,'' which means for the purpose of bringing Sharia942to a non-Muslim land.943    Thank you.944    [The prepared statement of Mr. Spencer follows:]945    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]946947    Mr. Roy. Thank you, Mr. Spencer. Appreciate your testimony.948Ms. Schild, again, I remind you to turn your microphone on, and949you have five minutes.950951                   STATEMENT OF KRISTA SCHILD952953    Ms. Schild. Thank you, Mr. Chair, distinguished Members of954Congress. I'm Krista Schild, the Texas State Director for RAIR955Foundation USA.956    I stand before you from deep love for America, our957Constitution, and the religious liberties it guarantees every958citizen. As a Christian who cherishes this Nation, I fiercely959defend its founding principles of freedom, equality, and self-960governance.961    On September 11, 2001, as an American Airlines flight962attendant, I watched the second plane slam into the tower. My963heart sank. The world changed in that moment. Freedom itself964was under siege.965    After 9/11, we believed the war was far away. Our brave966military went overseas to fight. We thought we were safe, but967we were tragically wrong.968    A planned invasion took root, concealed and deliberate.969Foreign and Islamic terror-tied networks quietly infiltrated970every layer of Texas life while we looked away.971    I travel across Texas listening to communities. Residents972tell me their neighborhoods are becoming unrecognizable.973Streets once familiar, now echo with foreign calls to prayer974that drown out church bells. Sons who fought these very forces975abroad return to find their hometown starting to resemble the976Middle East that they risked their lives to defend us against.977    Texas is Ground Zero for the Islamic conquest of America.978We are deep into a 1,400-year Islamic immigration conquest979pattern, a patient, relentless strategy of settlement,980infiltration, and eventual dominance.981    The Muslim Brotherhood's 1991 explanatory memorandum982entered in Federal court calls it a, quote, ``civilization983jihadist process to destroy the West from within.''984    That plan has been capturing Texas for over 35 years. We985now have over 330 mosques. CAIR calls them, quote, ``our986infrastructure.'' Erdogan calls them, quote, ``our barracks.''987    At least 650 Islamic nonprofits channeling influence.988Dozens of Islamic scholars and banks promoting Sharia989compliance finance. More than $4 billion in taxpayer funds990routed to Islamic entities since 2017. Our own money fueling991our demise.992    Islamic leaders telling us they want to implement Sharia.993They glorify chopping off hands, killing homosexuals, wife994beating, and child marriage without apology.995    Aggressive conversion campaigns, including terror-tied996groups, enter public schools without parental consent, to997distribute Korans, Sharia pamphlets, and hijabs to students.998    The East Plano Islamic Center, EPIC, rebranded, quote,999``The Meadows,'' an enclave led by imam Yasir Qadhi, who calls1000Jews and Christians, quote, ``the most evil of all evils'' and1001demands Islamic theocracy over democracy. These are emerging1002no-go zones.1003    Active Sharia courts. In the last legislative session, two1004Pakistani-born representatives introduced over 20 bills1005advancing Sharia, mandating Hallah in Texas schools, Muslim1006Heritage Month, quote, ``Islamophobia censorship laws'' to1007silence critics.1008    We already see Sharia enforcement in Texas, patrols1009pressuring Houston Muslim businesses to conform, imams berating1010Muslims for speaking to Christians, and families imposing1011deadly punishments on those who refuse to submit.1012    My own family was connected to two young Texas girls who1013chose to date non-Muslims. They were murdered by their own1014father for not conforming to Islam.1015    That pain drives me every day. These examples are not1016isolated. This is not assimilation. It is strategic1017infiltration and conquest. It is patient, multigenerational,1018and often funded by taxpayers. If we do not act, Sharia will1019dominate.1020    We're here today to bring you legislative evidence and have1021submitted that to prove to you that wherever Islam grows1022freedom dies. We must choose freedom under the Constitution or1023submission to Islam.1024    Thank you.1025    [The prepared statement of Mr. Schild follows:]1026    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]10271028    Mr. Roy. Thank you, Ms. Schild. I will now recognize1029Professor Somin. Again, a reminder to turn your microphone on,1030and you have five minutes.10311032                    STATEMENT OF ILYA SOMIN10331034    Mr. Somin. I thank the Subcommittee for the opportunity to1035address these important issues.1036    George Washington wrote that, ``America was founded in part1037to create an asylum for the poor and oppressed of all nations1038and religions.'' Thomas Jefferson, among others, made clear1039that American religious freedom is supposed to extend to1040Muslims, no less than to Christians, Jews, and others.1041    George Washington and Jefferson, they were right, whereas1042the proposed Preserving a Sharia-Free America Act is wrong.1043    If enacted and upheld by the courts, it would expel tens of1044thousands of people from the United States just because of1045their religion by virtue of making any noncitizen adherent of1046Sharia law subject to exclusion or deportation.1047    That violates the First Amendment, and it would do nothing1048to improve American national security. Indeed, the only real1049winners would be radical Islamist terrorists who would benefit1050from this by getting a free propaganda victory.1051    The Constitution in the First Amendment states that,1052``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of1053religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.'' That1054clearly protects freedom of religion against discrimination,1055and it applies to Muslims no less than to any other religious1056group.1057    Almost all Muslims to some degree or another are Sharia law1058adherents, because Sharia law is simply religious precepts of1059Islam. Muslims disagree a lot among themselves about what1060exactly those precepts mean and how they should be applied.1061    Nonetheless, a law targeting Sharia law adherents targets1062Muslims in much the same way as a law targeting adherents of1063Talmudic law would target Jews or a law targeting adherents of1064Canon Law targets Catholics.1065    The Supreme Court has also ruled that the Free Speech1066Clause protects religious freedom and expression, and thus this1067law, if enacted, would violate the Free Speech Clause as well.1068    It does not matter that this law addresses noncitizen1069immigrants, because there is no immigration exception to the1070First Amendment. When it says that Congress shall make no law1071restricting freedom of speech or the free exercise of religion,1072that means no law, no exceptions.1073    It also does not matter that noncitizens don't have a1074constitutional right to be in the United States. The Supreme1075Court, including in decisions by conservative Justices, has1076repeatedly made clear that discrimination against religious1077believers with respect to government benefits that are not1078constitutional rights still violates the Free Exercise Clause1079and also, in some cases, the Free Speech Clause.1080    For example, there's no constitutional right to Social1081Security benefits, but if Congress were to pass a law saying1082only Christians are entitled to such benefits, that would1083obviously be a violation of the First Amendment.1084    If enacted and wrongly upheld by the courts, this law would1085set a dangerous precedent, because it could easily be used to1086target any religious believers of any kind who run afoul of the1087views of the majority, including conservative Christians, among1088others.1089    This law also would cause great harm to innocent people. It1090would expel hundreds of thousands of people from the United1091States who have done no wrong and pose no threat.1092    Survey data shows the vast majority of Muslims in the1093United States do not support terrorism, do not support the1094creation of some kind of Islamic theocracy or anything of the1095kind.1096    Indeed, many of the Muslims in the United States are1097actually immigrants who fled oppression at the hands of radical1098Islamist regimes, like those of Iran and the Taliban in1099Afghanistan. Many of the latter are actually people who aided1100U.S. forces in the war on terror. They do not deserve to be1101excluded and deported.1102    In addition, if this were to pass and, again, be upheld1103wrongly, it would actually help radical Islamist terrorists1104waging war against the United States.1105    When President Trump in his first term enacted his much1106more limited anti-Muslim travel ban, the Islamic terrorist1107group ISIS hailed it as, quote, ``the blessed ban,'' because1108they knew it would help their terrorist recruitment by feeding1109their propaganda to the effect that the United States, and the1110West generally, are enemies of all Muslims.1111    We should not give a gift to the terrorists, and we should1112not damage ourselves by expelling hundreds of thousands of1113people who are productively contributing to our economy and1114society and have done no wrong other than perhaps have1115religious beliefs that some people do not like.1116    It is true that some Muslims, like some Christians, Jews,1117and others, may have awful views on various issues, but mass1118expulsion and discrimination is not the answer to any problems1119that might pose. We should instead simply enforce the religious1120freedom provision of our Constitution and other relevant laws1121banning terrorism or violence or the like.1122    In sum, this law is unconstitutional. If enacted, it would1123cause great harm. Therefore, this Subcommittee would do well to1124reject it out of hand. Thank you.1125    [The prepared statement of Mr. Somin follows:]1126    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]11271128    Mr. Roy. Thank you, Professor Somin. We will now proceed1129under the five-minute rule with questions.1130    Without objection, Mr. Biggs, a Member of the Judiciary1131Committee, will be permitted to participate in today's hearing1132for the purpose of questioning the witnesses if a Member yields1133him time for that purpose.1134    With that, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from1135Missouri, Mr. Onder, for five minutes.1136    Mr. Onder. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield my time to1137Representative Biggs.1138    Mr. Roy. I thank the gentleman.1139    Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Onder, for1140yielding time.1141    I'm curious, Professor, are you familiar with a case called1142Reynolds v. United States, 1879 case?1143    Mr. Somin. I am, yes.1144    Mr. Biggs. You must be, because part of your rationale on1145page 6 of your statement seems to go right along with the1146rationale of the original Reynolds case, which was that belief1147versus practice--belief OK, practice not necessarily OK, right?1148    You would agree with that, right? I'm looking at page 6,1149your line that says,11501151        Many aspects of Sharia law govern such issues as prayer,1152        fasting, and dietary restrictions that apply to religious1153        believers.11541155You would say that stuff is OK, protected even under Reynolds,1156right?1157    Mr. Somin. Certainly free exercise of religion includes--1158    Mr. Biggs. You would agree that praying, fasting, dietary1159restrictions, that's A-OK under Reynolds, right?1160    Mr. Somin. I do not think Reynolds gives the government a1161general power to ban prayer, fasting, and so on. No, it does1162not.1163    Mr. Biggs. That's right. I agree with that. In that1164particular case, the Court said ``polygamy is domy (ph),'' it1165is bad, you cannot practice polygamy anymore. Do you remember1166that?1167    Mr. Somin. I do.1168    Mr. Biggs. Yes. Now, I want to go to you, Mr. Gele. Let's1169just talk about some of the practices that seem to be broad in1170this idea of Sharia, because Sharia is an expansive term here.1171    I'm looking, and it says here that where Sharia is--on page11721, of your statement,11731174        The enforcement of foreign child custody judgments, that's1175        coming into America and we're relying on Sharia interpretations1176        from other places.11771178Is that accurate?1179    Mr. Gele. Yes. There's been numerous cases in which child1180custody judgments from either Islamic countries or even non-1181Islamic countries that have Sharia courts--1182    Mr. Biggs. How does that square with Reynolds, where you1183have a distinction between religious practices and behavior?1184Here we have Sharia determining actual child custody issues1185totally irrespective of religious practices.1186    How does that square with Reynolds?1187    Mr. Gele. Well, clearly, Reynolds would allow the1188government to regulate child custody, whether or not the child1189custody rules were favored or disfavored by a religion.1190    However, there is a lack in our law of addressing comity of1191foreign judgments in the constitutionality of the process for1192which those foreign courts reach their judgments. There's even1193a Ninth Circuit case, the Naoko case, where the Ninth Circuit1194explicitly said that you can't do a constitutional analysis on1195a foreign judgment.1196    Under current law, it appears as though foreign courts can1197do things that our courts would never imagine doing, would1198clearly violate constitutional rights, and those judgments are1199being brought here, and the judgments are being, on many1200occasions, enforced.1201    Mr. Biggs. Yes. They would be inconsistent with American1202jurisprudence, but somehow, we're incorporating some foreign1203jurisprudence into ours.1204    Now, I'll go to you, Mr. Spencer, for just a sec here. On1205page 2, of your statement, you point out that the Koran states1206a man should ``beat'' a woman from whom ``he fears1207disobedience.''1208    Domestic violence. Domestic violence is a behavior as1209opposed to a belief, but in the Sharia system it seems to be a1210belief.1211    Mr. Spencer. Yes, it's certainly a belief. You can't have1212something in the Koran and have Muslims say that they're1213against it if they are going to be believing, observant1214Muslims.1215    The problem becomes when they act on it in a Sharia1216context, then you have the precedent of Britain that I was1217explaining, that instead of referring it to the criminal courts1218as they had agreed to do, they tried it under Sharia and told1219the wife to go back and try to please her husband instead of1220prosecuting the man who is committing the domestic abuse.1221    Mr. Biggs. Sharia actually became an institution or a third1222rail that replaced the British judicial system, at least in1223that particular case.1224    Mr. Spencer. Exactly.1225    Mr. Biggs. Ms. Schild, ultimately this really is the nub of1226why we're here today. We see Sharia. We see its expansive1227nature. Some people want to frame it in a certain way, it's1228just how we pray, it's how we call to prayer, those types of1229religious practices. It actually has massive institutional1230ramifications.1231    Has it grown in Texas? What did this start out with? How1232has it been impacted in Texas? I'm almost out of time. Mr.1233Chair, if she can answer that question.1234    Mr. Roy. You may answer.1235    Ms. Schild. Yes. Mr. Chair, Members of Congress, Texas is1236under assault from Islamic groups and foreign powers, Qatar,1237Turkiye, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, waging a stealth war on1238our soil, planting flags via mosques, schools, and enclaves.1239    They follow the Muslim Brotherhood's, quote, ``Civilization1240jihad'' plan from the 1991 explanatory memorandum: Destroy1241America from within by imposing Sharia and achieving global1242dominance. This has been built for over 35 years and is now1243deeply entrenched. Reversal requires urgent action. Texas is1244Ground Zero. Sharia doctrine demands subjugation of non-1245Muslims.1246    Mr. Roy. Ms. Schild, you've got to wrap your answer,1247because we're overtime. Go ahead and wrap.1248    Ms. Schild. Yes. As RAIR Foundation's USA Texas Director, I1249travel across the State constantly. What I'm hearing from1250people in their communities who message me all the time what's1251happening in their own backyard is that they are very afraid of1252the Islamic Sharia expansion they see happening in our State1253and what that means, because they see it happening in other1254places in America.1255    Mr. Roy. Thank you, Ms. Schild. With that, I'll now1256recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Raskin.1257    Mr. Raskin. Mr. Roy, thank you very much. I find something1258to agree with what all the witnesses said. Let me start with1259Ms. Schild and Mr. Spencer.1260    You basically have said that there are fanatics within the1261Islamic faith who use the religion for their own purposes, and1262I have no quarrel with you there, except I would extend the1263point to say that's true of fanatics in every religious1264tradition, in every religious community. In fact, any1265particular crime or violent act that you would attribute to1266Sharia fanatics you could also find taking place in other1267communities too. Now, Mr. Gele, am I pronouncing your name1268right?1269    Mr. Gele. Yes, you are. Thank you.1270    Mr. Raskin. Mr. Gele. You make a very interesting point to1271me, but I want to try to break it down if we can. Let me start1272with this.1273    If there is a couple that are faithful Muslims who say that1274they are governed by Islamic law, but they get a divorce and1275it's a custody arrangement, and they go to a regular family1276court in any State in the country, do you agree with me that1277the standard that must govern by a judge is what's in the best1278interest of the child, even if, say, the husband is saying, no,1279under Sharia law--and I'm making this up, because I don't know1280if it's true--but under Sharia law, if the husband wants1281custody, he gets custody.1282    That would be not just wrong, but it would be outside of1283the law for a judge to say, ``I'm not going to use the law of1284the State of Colorado or Tennessee or Maryland; I'm just going1285to use Sharia law because both of you are Muslims.''1286    Mr. Gele. Every State in the United States applies the best1287interest of the child standard to some extent. Every State in1288the United States applies the law of that State. However, under1289the laws of arbitration and the laws of comity of foreign1290judgments, they will sometimes apply--1291    Mr. Raskin. OK, that's where I'm going now. Just to be1292clear, it would be a violation of the law and clearly1293reversible error if any District court in the land said we're1294going to use Orthodox Jewish law or Islamic law or Seventh-day1295Adventist law to decide a custody dispute or a marriage1296dispute. We can only use the secular law, and it is reversible1297error if it doesn't.1298    Now, you raise a really interesting point, though, which is1299what happens if there is a society which actually has a1300theocracy, like Saudi Arabia, for example, which I believe uses1301Islamic law and Sharia law.1302    OK. Let's say they are the husband--again, hypothetically,1303because I don't know the theological particulars, but let's say1304the husband gets custody because he wants custody. Then, they1305come over to America, and the wife argues, ``I should have1306custody under the best interest of the child standard.''1307    Are you saying that under the comity of laws or respect for1308foreign judgments that an American court is bound to accept the1309judgment that took place in another society?1310    Mr. Gele. I'm not saying that. The Maryland courts have1311said that--1312    Mr. Raskin. Yes.1313    Mr. Gele. --in the case of Hussain v. Malik, and it's1314happened in other instances.1315    Mr. Raskin. Yes.1316    Mr. Gele. The problem, Congressman, is that although the1317law of the States is clear, the Uniform Child Custody1318Jurisdiction Enforcement Act has overruled traditional concepts1319of comity, and it does not have a high threshold for enforcing1320those foreign judgments.1321    Mr. Raskin. OK. Let me just stop you there, because I have1322limited time. You've raised an interesting point. I don't think1323it's addressed at all by the good Chair's legislation. I don't1324think there's anything in the legislation that deals with your1325point.1326    That's something I'm open to, because I like American law.1327I don't think anybody here should be subject to laws of1328authoritarian theocratic societies like Saudi Arabia.1329    Professor Somin, to you. What about the Chair's1330legislation? Have you looked at that from a constitutional1331perspective?1332    Mr. Somin. Yes, I have, and for the reasons I stated1333before, it would be unconstitutional if enacted.1334    Mr. Raskin. You say that because you believe that--well,1335you believe the language and the text--you're an originalist.1336You're a textualist. You're the Cato Institute. You believe the1337language in the First Amendment says Congress shall make no law1338respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the1339free exercise thereof. Therefore, if we said we're not going to1340allow Sharia followers in the country; we're not going to allow1341fundamentalists or Mormons in the country because they believe1342in plural marriage, too; we're not going to believe anybody who1343believes in something that's at odds with our beliefs in the1344country--you're saying that this would violate the First1345Amendment?1346    Mr. Somin. Yes, it would. The Supreme Court, including in1347decisions by conservative justices, has repeatedly stated that1348discrimination on the basis of religion with respect to1349government benefits is unconstitutional.1350    Mr. Raskin. Yes, all right. Let me ask you one final thing.1351OK.1352    Within Orthodox Judaism, there's a process called the1353``get,'' which is that the couple may get a secular divorce,1354but if the husband doesn't dispense this religious document1355called a ``get,'' the woman can never get remarried again1356within Orthodox Judaism. There was an effort when I was in the1357Maryland Legislature to say, well, we are going to say that you1358can't get a secular divorce if you're not going to grant the1359woman this religious certificate or ``get.''1360    I just had to oppose it because it was conditioning a1361secular good on a religious act, and I wonder if you think I1362did the right thing there. These guys are schmucks. They are1363not giving the women the ``get,'' but the women can get1364remarried in secular court if they want to. They just can't do1365it within the religious courts.1366    Mr. Somin. Yes, I agree with you. Orthodox Jews can1367recognize or not recognize these divorces as they choose within1368their religious community, but as far as secular law in the1369United States is concerned, the law that matters are the law of1370the State of Maryland in that case or whatever State they1371happen to be in.1372    Mr. Raskin. Thank you for your patience, Mr. Chair. I yield1373back.1374    Mr. Roy. I thank the Ranking Member. I now recognize the1375gentleman from California, Mr. McClintock, for five minutes.1376    Mr. McClintock. Well, my thoughts are along a similar line.1377We are talking about two very different things: Compulsory and1378voluntary. The Democrats are correct that Jefferson believed in1379religious liberty, which is the voluntary adoption by an1380individual of religious beliefs and religious expression and1381religious practice, and that is protected under our First1382Amendment. That's something fundamentally different from the1383compulsory imposition of religious practice on those who are1384not accepting those beliefs.1385    Jefferson made the point in one of his letters that every1386religion proclaims itself as the one true religion. How is1387anybody going to able to sort through all that and find out the1388one true religion for themselves if we don't allow the airing1389of all those differences and allow people the freedom to1390discuss and to debate them?1391    Our Constitution protects not only religious liberty. It1392protects civil liberty as well. You've got the right to your1393religion. You don't have the right to impose it on others.1394You've got the right to extol or criticize religion for its1395teachings or beliefs. Do any of our panelists disagree with1396that?1397    OK. If somebody wants to adopt the Muslim religion and1398abide by its practices in their personal lives, they have the1399right to do so. Does anybody disagree with that?1400    OK. If somebody wants to enter into a contract with someone1401who also adopts these practices, as long as those terms don't1402violate the civil law, they have a right to do so. Does anybody1403disagree with that one?1404    Mr. Gele. Representative, I would not agree with that in1405the case of child custody--of arbitration of child custody.1406    Mr. McClintock. OK. Could you explain that a little bit1407further?1408    Mr. Gele. Sure. Some States allow--particularly, Texas1409allows the arbitration of child custody. Other States have just1410banned it like New York. When there's a child involved, just1411because the parents agree to have child custody arbitrated, it1412does not mean the State should automatically enforce that child1413custody judgment. States would have the option of either1414banning the arbitration of child custody or there's a model law1415or a governing.1416    Those States could pass governing the arbitration of child1417custody, but I do not believe it's a good policy to allow1418arbitrators to determine child custody without some basis of1419court review.1420    Mr. McClintock. Well, if both the parents agree this would1421be a contractual relationship. If both parents agree, what's1422the beef? Again, it's both parents agree and it's in compliance1423with the civil law.1424    Mr. Gele. Well, if in compliance with the civil law means a1425judge reviewed it and found it was the best interest of the1426child then I would certainly agree with that.1427    Mr. McClintock. Right. OK. We're in agreement on all those1428things. My question is: Are there instances where Sharia law is1429being imposed on people against their will in this country1430today?1431    Mr. Gele. In the case of child custody, the arbitration1432panels can be doing that.1433    Mr. McClintock. You just discussed--right. You just1434discussed that, OK.1435    Mr. Gele. That could both be through foreign judgments or1436through arbitration.1437    Mr. McClintock. OK. Are you aware of any proposals to enact1438laws that would assist in imposing Sharia law on others or1439giving it precedence over our own civil law? Anyone? OK. Well,1440good.1441    Ms. Schild. There was actually a case in Collin County,1442Texas, with actually a Republican female judge who looked at a1443case of a divorce, and she sent the woman to a Sharia court,1444and it was overturned by the Texas Supreme Court.1445    Mr. McClintock. Yes. Again, that's the remedy we have for1446erroneous judicial decisions, and that is the appellate1447process, and what you're saying is it worked in that case.1448    I've got about a minute left. I'll yield to the Chair since1449I see Mr. Biggs has left.1450    Mr. Roy. I thank the gentleman from California. I would1451just ask Mr. Spencer. Do you have anything to add to what Mr.1452McClintock from California was just adding about any of those1453concerns? You seem to want to. I just want to make sure.1454    Mr. Spencer. Yes. The aspects of Sharia that are really1455controversial are political and not religious. The whole1456hearing here is turning on the idea that it would be terrible1457to restrict religious practice and in violation of the First1458Amendment, but the difficulty here is that Sharia in all its1459forms and wherever it has been implemented has been political1460and not just religious--1461    Mr. McClintock. Oh, agreed.1462    Mr. Spencer. --and has been supremacist and not just1463egalitarian. There is no Sharia state--1464    Mr. McClintock. If I could reclaim my time.1465    Mr. Roy. I yield back to the gentleman from California.1466    Mr. McClintock. If I could reclaim my time, I agree with1467you. There is a political aspect of it, but that is protected1468by our freedom of speech, our freedom to criticize, our freedom1469to debate it, and our freedom to vote it down. Isn't that the1470way the system works?1471    Mr. Spencer. Well, I don't think that the freedom of speech1472is in play when you're talking about active efforts to subvert1473constitutional order in the place of another one.1474    Mr. McClintock. When you're debating any political issue,1475that's the essence of it. We all talk among ourselves.1476    Mr. Spencer. Obviously, you cannot the classic thing of1477crying fire in a crowded theater. It's the same thing here.1478There are laws against subversion. There are laws against1479working against the constitutional order, and that's what's at1480issue here. Sharia is not really open to debate. Everywhere1481it's been implemented--in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan,1482Pakistan, and Somalia--it's pretty much the same.1483    Mr. Roy. Thank you, Mr. Spencer. I thank the gentleman from1484California. I now recognize the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr.1485Cohen.1486    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm a little confused1487about this hearing. I think we all probably agree--I haven't1488been here to hear everybody's agreement--but I think we all1489agreed Sharia law is not something that anybody would want to1490have to live under. It's oppressive, and it's a religion that's1491forced on other people.1492    We've got a Constitution already that's under attack. The1493emoluments clause is being shredded. The pardons power is being1494abused in such a way that is--people question whether we should1495have a pardon power because it is not being used for the1496reasons by which it was put in the Constitution--for unusual1497cases where justice wasn't served, et cetera--and it's being1498used as a transaction event. We're talking about Sharia law?1499    We've got so much to deal with, Mr. Chair, with our1500Constitution and protecting it, the First Amendment, the Fourth1501Amendment, what's going on in Minnesota, the murdering of1502citizens, fear on the streets, murdering and shooting people in1503the back 10 times, shooting a woman in the face, not giving or1504rendering aid to either one of them, not allowing doctors to1505render aid to them, watching them die. Those are constitutional1506problems. We're talking about Sharia law?1507    This is not really relevant to this Committee and to what's1508going on in America today. There is so much we could be dealing1509with concerning the Constitution and protecting America. The1510White Christian nationalist ideology has been put forward.1511    One of the gentlemen here said something about--was it the1512certain--it might have been you, Mr. Spencer--something that a1513group put forward as their plan for the future, some1514publication or some ideology. Did you mention that?1515    Mr. Spencer. I don't know. You might be referring to the1516Explanatory Memorandum, which is--I didn't mention, but it's a1517captured internal document of the Muslim Brotherhood detailing1518its program for the United States, where it says the brothers1519must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand1520jihad in eliminating and destroying Western civilization from1521within and sabotaging its miserable house by their own hands1522and the hands of the believers, so that the law's religion is1523victorious over other religions.1524    Mr. Cohen. Right. That's pretty much what--1525    Mr. Spencer. I would suggest that just saying that we've1526got other problems doesn't make that one go away.1527    Mr. Cohen. Sir, I've got the floor. Sir, I've got the1528floor. You're not Pam Bondi.1529    Mr. Spencer. Sorry?1530    Mr. Cohen. I said I've got the floor. You're not Pam Bondi.1531That's what I was getting at. What you're talking about sounds1532like a Middle Eastern version of Project 2025, another type of1533manifesto to take over and do all these things and to control1534our government and to turn it around on its head.1535    We should be looking at Project 2025 and what they plan to1536do to this country and what they're doing to this country. This1537is not the country that Jefferson would have known. It's not1538the country I've known. It's not the country that I think our1539Constitution foresaw. None of this seems relevant. It seems1540like--1541    Mr. Raskin. Will the gentleman kindly yield?1542    Mr. Cohen. Yes, sir, please.1543    Mr. Raskin. Thank you to the distinguished gentleman from1544Tennessee.1545    There was a mass murderer in Norway who went on an anti-1546Muslim rampage and killed 69 people. You'll recall his name was1547Anders Breivik. He denounced Norwegian politicians as failing1548to defend the country against the Muslim takeover.1549    I raise it because I want to introduce this article from1550The New York Times. He invoked your work, Mr. Spencer. You are1551probably aware of that. You probably know about this article1552from The New York Times that he frequently quoted Robert1553Spencer who operates the Jihad Watch website.1554    All which goes to demonstrate the point I was making before1555that fanatics can take up any ideology, religious or secular,1556and use it to commit horrific crimes, all which to me would1557suggest that all of us should be careful about whether we're1558speaking up for general principles like the separation of1559church and State and against religious fanaticism of every1560kind, or whether we're trying to demonize and vilify a1561particular group. I don't know if you have any response.1562    Mr. Spencer. Well, yes. In terms of demonizing and1563vilifying, obviously, this would be an example of it because1564Anders Breivik quoted me, yes. He actually quoted a documentary1565that I was in. Every time my name was mentioned as speaking,1566it's listed as one of the times he mentioned, and then they1567say, oh, he mentioned him 100 times or something.1568    Mr. Raskin. Anything about the massacre itself?1569    Mr. Spencer. The fact is that he also quoted Barack Obama.1570    Mr. Raskin. Anything about the massacre of all the innocent1571people?1572    Mr. Spencer. He quoted John F. Kennedy. He quoted many,1573many people.1574    Mr. Raskin. OK. Leaving aside the quotations, do you have1575any thoughts on the massacre of the people?1576    Mr. Spencer. He actually took issue with me for not1577counseling violence. To bring this up really is tantamount to1578saying that Elizabeth Warren is responsible for the Dayton mass1579murders because the mass murderer invoked her name.1580    Mr. Raskin. OK. OK. Mr. Chair, I think Mr. Cohen's time is1581up. I would like to enter this from The New York Times article1582into the record, ``Killings in Norway Spotlight Anti-Muslim1583Thought in the U.S.''1584    Mr. Cohen. I yield back the balance of my time.1585    Mr. Roy. Without objection. Thanks. Thank you, Mr. Cohen. I1586now recognize my friend from North Carolina, Mr. Harris.1587    Mr. Harris. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I thank all of you on1588the panel for what you have shared today.1589    While there has been a lot of talk about what we don't know1590and we don't know this world or we don't know that world, let1591me tell you what happened in my world, in the Eighth District1592of North Carolina. This past year, in late 2025, the FBI in1593coordination with local law enforcement arrested an 18-year-old1594in Mint Hill, North Carolina, who was plotting to carry out a1595deadly New Year's Eve attack in support of ISIS. According to1596the DOJ, this 18-year-old--Christian Sturdivant is his name--1597sought to become a martyr for ISIS.1598    Mr. Spencer, I just want to give you a chance to share. Can1599you help me understand how a kid growing up in a suburb of1600Charlotte, a rural area in North Carolina, can be radicalized1601by the Islamic State.1602    Mr. Spencer. Mr. Harris, this is a very important issue1603that law enforcement and intelligence agencies in the U.S. have1604been entirely remiss and have ignored altogether. The fact is1605that a young man like that in Mint Hill could easily go to1606numerous sites on the internet, and quite possibly to people1607within his own community, who would tell him that the Islamic1608State, ISIS, represents authentic Islam and that violence1609against unbelievers is a duty that he needed to carry out.1610    This is something that ISIS recruiters say all over the1611world. They were able to attract thousands of Muslims from 1001612different countries when they had their caliphate in Iraq and1613Syria, and this is because their claim to Islamic authenticity1614rang true among all too many Muslims, and nobody is countering1615that.1616    Mr. Harris. I know this happened in Mint Hill, as I1617mentioned. Can you tell me where else in the United States that1618such radicali-1619zation is happening?1620    Mr. Spencer. This has happened all over the country. We had1621the Boston marathon murders that were two young Muslims, once1622again, who were thought to be moderate at one time. We had the1623Fort Hood massacre, San Bernardino, Chattanooga. The list goes1624on. Orlando, Florida. The list goes on and on and on.1625    These are young Muslims in the United States who come to1626believe by--for reasons that nobody has ever investigated1627fully--that this is the authentic expression of their faith.1628    Mr. Harris. What role is the internet playing, you believe,1629in the radicalization of American-born youth?1630    Mr. Spencer. Well, the Islamic State group has frequently1631called on Muslims in the United States specifically to carry1632out lone-wolf jihad terror attacks by just starting to murder1633people at random when they get the opportunity. Because they1634have this claim of Islamic authenticity, it's all too easy for1635a young man to go online and see that and think that he will be1636receiving a reward from Allah for carrying it out.1637    Mr. Harris. Well, as a pastor myself, I believe, obviously,1638that religious liberty is critically important and something1639we've got to be willing to do what we must to protect. However,1640I also recognize that a person's religious liberty doesn't mean1641they can impose their religious liberty on others.1642    Let me ask you this, Mr. Spencer. How do we balance our1643respect for religious liberty with the threat you see posed by1644Sharia law?1645    Mr. Spencer. It seems to me we have to be able to say to1646the Muslim community that they are perfectly free to practice1647their religion except where, in particular, it contravenes1648other existing American laws.1649    For example, there were a couple doctors in Detroit a few1650years back who were put on trial for practicing female genital1651mutilation, and their defense was that this was part of their1652Islamic faith and that they were carrying out as part of their1653religious practice.1654    A judge ultimately threw the case out saying, yes, indeed,1655this contravenes religious freedom, and we have to understand1656that it would be unconstitutional to ban female genital1657mutilation because it's part of Islam. The rights of those1658girls whose lives are destroyed, they don't matter at all.1659That's Sharia.1660    Mr. Harris. Well, and one thing--in just the last 401661seconds--that concerns me is the creation of these Islamic1662tribunals that seek to mediate disputes between Muslims and1663bind Muslims in the United States to Sharia law. We've seen1664them popping up in cities like Dallas, which led Governor1665Abbott to request law enforcement officials to investigate1666these entities.1667    Mr. Gele, in just the last 15 seconds, would Sharia law-1668based institutions such as these potentially violate Federal1669law, and if so, how so?1670    Mr. Gele. They would probably not violate Federal law that1671is particularly a statute, but what they would do is in some of1672their rulings that their rulings were enforced by civil1673courts--such as, of course, in Texas, as Texas law would1674currently suggest--then that would violate certainly American1675constitutional liberties, including due process, equal1676protection, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion.1677    Mr. Harris. OK. Thank you, sir. I'm out of time. I yield1678back, Mr. Chair.1679    Mr. Roy. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina. I now1680recognize the Ranking Member, Ms. Scanlon, for her five minutes1681of questions.1682    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you. It's been an interesting discussion1683of one religious minority attempting to impose its beliefs on1684the general population, which, of course, would violate the1685First Amendment.1686    That our colleague, Mr. Cohen, did raise an interesting1687point about the greatest danger perhaps lying not with Sharia1688law but with White Christian nationalism--which is very1689different than patriotic Americans who happen to be Christian--1690but the White Christian nationalist movement, which is embodied1691in the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 manifesto. Which we1692have seen over the last year the Trump Administration has1693embraced both by putting people who drafted that document into1694the administration but also by implementing its plans.1695    I will just run through a few of them. The plan calls for a1696total abortion ban--which is not something that people of all1697faiths believe in--including the overturning of FDA approval1698for mife-pristone and restricting access to contraception.1699These beliefs seek to reverse LGBTQ+ equality, including same-1700sex marriage, and making it very difficult for people to access1701gender-affirming care.1702    The policy promotes a very narrow definition of family as a1703married mother and father, often portraying single motherhood1704as an aspect or a cause of social decay. It proposes and the1705Trump Administration has moved to abolish the Department of1706Education, promoting school privatization through vouchers and1707trying to fund private religious schools.1708    With respect to civil service, we've seen the moves to1709reclassify tens of thousands of nonpartisan Federal civil1710servants and replace them with political appointees willing to1711swear allegiance to this particular ideology. Impacts on the1712environment, et cetera. There's a whole host of ways here in1713which this particular ideology has been embedded in our1714government in recent times, despite the fact that it does pose1715a threat to underlying constitutional values and other people's1716religious beliefs.1717    That keeps coming to mind as we have this conversation1718about having the respect for religious liberty and people being1719free to practice their own religion, but they're not supposed1720to be imposing their own religion on others.1721    Professor Somin, can you speak--for the benefit of my1722Republican colleagues, can you explain how the First1723Amendment's Free Exercise Clause and the Free Establishment1724Clause work together to prohibit the government from imposing1725one group of Americans' religious views on another?1726    Mr. Somin. Sure, absolutely. Certainly, the Free Exercise1727Clause prevents direct coercion of religion of any kind,1728forcing people to engage in religious practices that they don't1729want to engage in. The Establishment Clause prevents the1730establishment of any kind of official religion, including the1731kind of theocracy we see in Iran or in Saudi Arabia.1732    Also, relevant to this case and to the legislation we're1733talking about today, the Free Exercise Clause in decisions by1734Supreme Court justices--including by conservative ones in the1735case of Carson v. Makin dealing with, yes, school vouchers--1736they have ruled that it violates the Free Exercise Clause to1737exclude people or organizations based on their religious1738beliefs from benefits that are available to other people, even1739though the State did not have an obligation to create school1740vouchers under the Constitution in Maine.1741    When Maine did so, in Carson, the Supreme Court in the1742decision joined by all six conservative justices correctly1743ruled that excluding religious schools simply because they're1744religious violates the First Amendment, and the same thing1745would be true for an effort to exclude Muslim immigrants in the1746United States simply because their adherence of Sharia law.1747This jurisprudence, which conservatives accept almost1748everywhere else, applies here as well.1749    Ms. Scanlon. We've recently seen some examples where this1750administration has tried to exclude immigrants and deport1751immigrants based on their First Amendment speech, for example,1752publishing an op-ed. Can you talk about why, under the First1753Amendment, the government can't deport noncitizens simply1754because of their religious views?1755    Mr. Somin. Sure. I described this in my written testimony,1756but the basic idea is that there is no immigration exception to1757the First Amendment and that the rights protected by the First1758Amendment apply to noncitizens on our territory no less than1759the citizens, and does courts several times over the last year1760have ruled against the Trump Administration's campaign of1761speech-based deportations and rightly so.1762    Ms. Scanlon. I would just yield 25 seconds to Mr. Raskin.1763    Mr. Raskin. I actually have a UC request, Mr. Chair, if1764that's OK.1765    Mr. Roy. Sure.1766    Mr. Raskin. This is 18 U.S.C. 116, Section C, and this is1767banning female genital mutilation in America. It says it shall1768not be a defense to a prosecution under the section that female1769genital mutilation is required as a matter of religion, custom,1770or tradition.1771    I don't know the judge that Mr. Spencer is referring to,1772but that's why we have Appellate courts if somebody actually1773allowed it in plain contravention of the statute.1774    Mr. Roy. Without objection. I will now recognize my1775colleague and friend, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gill.1776    Mr. Gill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for holding this1777hearing and for very boldly and clearly speaking about this.1778This is an issue that I hear all the time from my constituents1779in North Texas who are concerned about the rise of radical1780Islam in Texas, and I want to thank the witnesses for being1781here as well.1782    I have a few questions, and I want to start with you, Mr.1783Somin. Can you tell me what percentage of U.S. Muslims believe1784that Sharia law should be implemented in the United States?1785    Mr. Somin. I am not aware of survey data on that specific1786question. However,--1787    Mr. Gill. I can tell you it's 39 percent. Thirty-nine1788percent of Muslims in the United States want Sharia law1789implemented in the next 20 years. Do you know what percentage1790of Muslims in the United States support the formation of a1791Muslim political party?1792    Mr. Somin. Again, I'm not familiar with survey data on that1793particular question, but--1794    Mr. Gill. The number is 46 percent. I'll do a couple more.1795Do you know what percentage of Muslims in the United States1796support making it illegal to show a picture of the cartoon--or1797a cartoon of the prophet Muhammad?1798    Mr. Somin. As with the other questions, a lot depends on1799the wording and the sample, and I would want to see the1800methodology here.1801    Mr. Gill. Fifty percent. That's a lot.1802    Let's do one more. Do you know what percentage of Muslims1803in the United States believe that Islam should be declared as1804our national religion?1805    Mr. Somin. Once again, I would want to look at the1806methodology of the survey to question--1807    Mr. Gill. Thirty-three percent. This is from a survey1808conducted by the Heritage Foundation in September 2024. It was1809published on October 6, 2024.1810    I've got two more for you. Do you know what percentage of1811American Muslims believe that Israel does not have a right to1812exist as a Jewish homeland?1813    Mr. Somin. I don't know that one either, but if it's from a1814survey by the Heritage Foundation, they are known for their bad1815methodology.1816    Mr. Gill. It's 43 percent. You are happy--you can declare1817that statistics you don't like aren't true, but that's not how1818I'm going to operate here.1819    We got one more. Do you know what percentage of Muslims in1820the United States say that Jewish people have too much power in1821government policy?1822    Mr. Somin. Once again, I would refer you back to my1823previous answer.1824    Mr. Gill. Fifty-seven percent. Do those facts concern you?1825    Mr. Somin. Again, I would want to see the nature of the1826survey, and I would also know the--1827    Mr. Gill. No, I'm just asking if those statistics concern1828you.1829    Mr. Somin. If they were accurate, they would be a matter of1830concern, but I would want to see--1831    Mr. Gill. They are accurate, that they are a matter of1832concern, and most Americans agree with me there.1833    Mr. Spencer, I'm going to move on to you. Let me ask you.1834Is Islam as a political ideology, in your opinion, compatible1835with America's constitutional governing framework?1836    Mr. Spencer. Oh, no, certainly not. It denies the freedom1837of speech. It denies the equality of rights of non-Muslims with1838Muslims, the equality of rights of women with men, and1839contradicts U.S. law and numerous other particulars.1840    Mr. Gill. Can you tell me what is the goal of political1841Islam?1842    Mr. Spencer. Well, Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, said1843Islam must dominate and not be dominated. In every Sharia State1844that is on Earth today and has ever been on Earth, non-Muslims1845have not had equality of rights with Muslims in the society.1846The idea is to enforce a subservient position for them so that1847they know the pain in this world as well as the next of having1848rejected Muhammad, which the Koran says that they will suffer.1849    Mr. Gill. Under Islamic law as it's commonly practiced, are1850men and women treated with equal dignity?1851    Mr. Spencer. No, certainly not. I quoted before the passage1852about women--beating women from whom you fear disobedience. The1853Koran contains nothing about beating disobedient men.1854    Mr. Gill. Ms. Schild, I've got a few questions for you. Can1855you explain to us very, very briefly what is EPIC City? Do you1856mind turning your microphone on?1857    Mr. Roy. Your microphone.1858    Ms. Schild. Yes. To understand how Sharia relates to EPIC1859City, you don't have to look any further than Imam Yasir Qadhi1860of EPIC. He is the Chair of the Fiqh Council on North America,1861the group that tells Muslims in the U.S. how to apply Sharia.1862    Mr. Gill. Do you know who is funding EPIC City?1863    Ms. Schild. Yes. Just one moment. I have some information1864on funding.1865    When you ask where the money and infrastructure for EPIC1866City are coming from, when EPIC City was first marketed, they1867actively solicited investors, including foreign investors. That1868fundraising model is now under serious legal scrutiny with1869Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. He sued East Plano Islamic1870Center, its development arm, community capital partners,1871alleging violations of Texas security laws in how funds were1872raised and managed. This isn't isolated.1873    Mr. Gill. Thank you. My time is up, so I yield back. Thank1874you, Mr. Chair.1875    Mr. Roy. The Ranking Member.1876    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you. I seek unanimous consent to enter1877into the record an article published by the Cato Institute on1878October 26, 2025, written by Mustafa Akyol, titled ``No `Sharia1879Law' is Coming to Texas.''1880    I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record an article1881published by Politico on January 26, 2026, written by Liz1882Crampton and Jessica Piper, titled ``Republicans go all-in on1883Sharia law attacks ahead of Texas primary.''1884    I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record an article1885written by J. David Goodman published in The New York Times on1886February 10, 2026, ``Without a `Border Invasion,' Texas GOP1887Turns to an Old Enemy, Islam.''1888    Mr. Roy. Without objection.1889    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you.1890    Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chair, I've got one too.1891    Mr. Roy. The Ranking Member.1892    Mr. Raskin. This is from the Pew Research Center, ``451893percent of Americans say the United States should be a1894Christian Nation.''1895    Mr. Roy. Without objection.1896    Mr. Roy. I will now recognize myself for such time as I1897shall consume.1898    Ms. Schild, let me ask you a quick question. Just try to go1899through these pretty quickly, all right? Just a few things with1900respect to Texas that my friend, Mr. Gill, was just talking1901about. Is it true that--not just EPIC City--that there are1902other similar-type compounds being built across the State of1903Texas?1904    Ms. Schild. Yes.1905    Mr. Roy. Including North of Austin and including--there's a1906big center in the West campus in the University of Texas.1907    Ms. Schild. Right.1908    Mr. Roy. Including other places and others. It's not just1909located--just EPIC City. Is that correct?1910    Ms. Schild. That's correct. All over the State.1911    Mr. Roy. I also talk to a number of people, particularly in1912the Dallas--Fort Worth metroplex--women in particular--who will1913tell me that there are enclaves in areas throughout the1914Dallas--Fort Worth metroplex where they do not go. Where there1915are women, Texans, who say that because they are in areas that1916have a high concentration of Muslim men, and because of the1917nature of what's going on in those areas, that there are now,1918quote, ``no-go zones'' in the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex. Is1919that correct?1920    Ms. Schild. That's correct.1921    Mr. Roy. I have heard that from multiple people and1922multiple places throughout that area, correct?1923    Ms. Schild. Correct.1924    Mr. Roy. Mr. Spencer--and I look to you on this question1925here. I heard my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who1926were raising objection to legislation that--and a number of1927bills that some of us introduced, particularly one that I1928introduced--that was raising the issue of vetting individuals1929as we're bringing them into the United States for their1930adherence to Sharia law. That was the idea.1931    The idea is that Sharia law is inconsistent with our values1932in Western civilization, so we should know if we're bringing1933people into the country that may want to advance a system of1934law or systems that are contrary to our laws.1935    Here's my question. In doing so, my colleagues acknowledged1936and said that this would mean that Muslims generally would be1937in fear of deportation or inability to be brought into the1938country. Does that not suggest that there's a recognition that1939Sharia law is central to most of the Muslim population1940throughout the world and those that come to the United States?1941    Mr. Spencer. It would seem as if they're aware of that,1942yes.1943    Mr. Roy. Is that true?1944    Mr. Spencer. Yes.1945    Mr. Roy. Is Sharia law central to most Muslims throughout1946the world?1947    Mr. Spencer. Absolutely. Sharia is considered divine law,1948and thus it takes precedence over all other legal systems. In1949areas of the Muslim world where it is not fully implemented,1950such as Egypt or Syria or other countries, it still has a1951tremendous cultural influence such that elements of it are1952often enforced by individuals or groups where the government1953doesn't do so.1954    Mr. Roy. Is it not true also that there are some 50-plus1955countries throughout the world, in which, Sharia is either1956entirely the law or central to the law in a mixture of its1957religious implementation but also its civil?1958    Mr. Spencer. Yes, that's right. There are 57 members of the1959Organization of Islamic Cooperation: Fifty-six nations and the1960Palestinian Authority.1961    Mr. Roy. Is it also not true that when we're talking about1962the advance of the Islam population or the population of1963Muslims that adhere to Islam in this country--that it is not1964also true that there is significant funding by groups and1965organizations to push that, including Sharia, into the United1966States?1967    Mr. Spencer. Oh, there's no doubt whatsoever. For example,1968Prince al-Waleed bin Talal from Saudi Arabia who has spent1969millions and millions of dollars in funding universities, such1970as Georgetown, where they have now the Prince Al-Waleed Center1971for Muslim-Christian Understanding that is designed essentially1972to whitewash Islam, jihad, and Sharia and present a version of1973these things designed to foster complacency. You also have the1974Government of Qatar doing the same thing on an even larger--1975    Mr. Roy. In addition to these countries, in addition to1976foreign funding, there are organizations such as CAIR and other1977organizations that are designed to implement and advance the1978existence of Sharia and the advance of Islam and Islamism in1979the United States. Is that true?1980    Mr. Spencer. Oh, certainly. Omar Ahmad, the cofounder of1981CAIR, has been on record saying, ``the Koran should be the only1982law of the land.'' He has denied saying this, but the original1983reporter stuck by her story. Ibrahim Hooper of CAIR, the famous1984spokesperson for the organization, said that he, ``wanted to1985see the Government of the United States become Islamic sometime1986in the future.'' This is something that is clear from all of1987CAIR's actions.1988    Mr. Roy. Would it be safe to say that the goal of those1989organizations and the Muslim Brotherhood, as my friend Mr. Gill1990said--also from Texas--that the goal of those organizations in1991advancing Islam and Islamist movement in the United States--1992that the goal is for the Western Hemisphere and for the Western1993civilization, the United States, and Texas as ground zero to1994become Islamic?1995    Mr. Spencer. Oh, there's no doubt about it. That's very1996clear from the Explanatory Memorandum of the Muslim Brotherhood1997saying that the goal is that a law's religion is victorious1998over other religions, and they're working toward eliminating1999and destroying Western civilization from within. All the non-2000Muslim apologists for Sharia that we see are indications of how2001successful that effort has been.2002    Mr. Roy. One last question--and I'm over my time--and then2003I will recognize the gentlelady from Wyoming.2004    Is that not inherently political and not just missional? In2005other words, it's not just saying, hey, we would like people to2006know Allah and to know the teachings of Muhammad and Islam as2007much as a Christian might want to advance the mission of2008Christ, but that it is political in ideology and in effect.2009    Mr. Spencer. There is no doubt whatsoever. This is all2010about political power. Nihad Awad, the Executive Director of2011CAIR, has made that quite clear in repeated statements speaking2012about increasing the number of Muslim Congressman, getting2013Muslim Senators, and increasing Muslim political power on that2014basis.2015    Mr. Roy. I thank the gentleman. I will now recognize the2016gentlelady from Wyoming.2017    Ms. Hageman. Thank you and thank you all for being here2018today.2019    In August 2025, an Austrian court issued a ruling2020confirming an arbitration award based explicitly on Islamic2021Sharia law. In the specific case, a contract was signed by two2022men that mandated that an arbitration tribunal would resolve2023conflicts based on Sharia law. The arbitration tribunal, after2024a conflict arose, later decided against one of the two men and2025forced him to pay $320,000, and the decision was upheld by the2026Vienna regional court for civil matters.2027    The European Center for Law and Justice highlights examples2028in Europe where Sharia law has been legally applied, including2029in Greece, where under the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne, citizens2030who are Muslims and residents in Western Thrace have used2031Sharia law as a parallel legal system for private law. We know2032that it has also happened here in America.2033    Mr. Gele, I would like to turn to you. Across parts of2034Europe and more limited context in the United States, we have2035learned that there are a number of so-called Sharia-based2036tribunals that purport to resolve family and other civil2037disputes using Sharia-centric principles. To your knowledge,2038how far back have some of these tribunals been permitted to2039operate in the United States and across Europe?2040    Mr. Gele. Across Europe, I can't speak to as well. Across2041the United States, they have existed for at least several2042decades. Certainly, the number of cases that they have been2043handling appears to be increasing, and that increasing appears2044to be accelerating. One of the difficulties in monitoring this2045is that, typically, only Appellate court decisions are2046reported.2047    Ms. Hageman. Right.2048    Mr. Gele. You would only truly find out about it if there2049was an arbitration. If the arbitration award was then2050challenged in a District court, sometimes those are reported.2051Normally, it would only be reported if the appeal then went up2052to an Appellate court. It's very hard to get good data.2053    Ms. Hageman. Well, could you explain the process by which a2054family dispute, for example, may be resolved in a Sharia law-2055applied setting in contrast to what we would expect to see in2056an American family court proceeding?2057    Mr. Gele. Sure. Typically, it would begin with an Islamic2058mahr, which is an Islamic marriage contract. That contract2059would be signed normally before the marriage. Then, during the2060marriage, if a dispute arose between the couple, they would2061then--one of them would approach the Sharia tribunal.2062Typically, an imam--sometimes an attorney, sometimes not,2063sometimes not an imam--but, commonly, imams would then2064essentially adjudge it.2065    There would typically not be most of the formalities within2066American law. You wouldn't have, for example, a court reporter2067recording everything down. You wouldn't always have formal2068pleadings. Sometimes it would be as simple as basically a2069meeting. Then, there would be a ruling. Those rulings aren't2070always necessarily placed in clear judgments. A lot of the2071formalities that we as lawyers do in American courts simply do2072not exist in those systems.2073    Ms. Hageman. Well, that's very important because due2074process and equal protection are foundational tenets guaranteed2075under the United States Constitution and most State2076constitutions, and they are available to every American citizen2077who engages with the judiciary or seeks legal relief.2078    Mr. Gele, based on what knowledge there is of how Sharia2079tribunals operate within Europe and to a more limited extent in2080America, are there risks of participants--notably women and2081minors--losing due process protections and equal treatment in a2082Sharia-based system?2083    Mr. Gele. Yes. Those risks are quite significant. They have2084manifested themselves in the few Appellate cases we've been2085able to see. The remedies for those are not that difficult.2086States can either ban the arbitration of family law matters,2087particularly custody. Some States have done that for decades,2088often blue States more than red States.2089    Additionally, there is a model act that's been put out that2090would create some thresholds that the reviewing court would2091then be able to look at the basis of the decision of the court.2092In the case of custody, they would look at other children's2093matters for visitation and look at the best interest of the2094child. Currently, in many States--Texas particularly being2095one--those safeguards do not exist.2096    Ms. Hageman. Why are women and minors more at risk in a2097Sharia-based tribunal system?2098    Mr. Gele. Primarily for two reasons.2099    First, Sharia law tends to be discriminatory against women,2100particularly compared to modern American law.2101    Second, Sharia law does not require any analysis of the2102best interest of the child.2103    Normally, custody is based depending on what exact school2104of Sharia is being applied. Custody is normally based on the2105age of the child and based on the age the child will be given2106to one of the two parents.2107    Ms. Hageman. In a Sharia-based system, there is a real risk2108that people engaged in that would be losing due process and2109equal protection rights. Is that fair?2110    Mr. Gele. Yes. It's almost guaranteed, particularly on the2111equal protection side.2112    Ms. Hageman. Thank you, and I yield back.2113    Mr. Roy. Thank you, Mr. Gele. I thank the gentlelady from2114Wyoming, and I'll now recognize the gentleman from Wisconsin2115for five minutes.2116    Mr. Grothman. Thank you. First, I want to respond to2117something that was said earlier. Every weekend, I get home and2118I meet different people around my district. Maybe I attend2119Republican Party events, maybe church groups and their2120fundraisers, American Legions, Lions Clubs, Rotary Clubs, and2121just random people when I sometimes just go door to door. I2122have yet to find one person who is a self-avowed or even2123unself-avowed Christian nationalist. I just never met that2124person. Nevertheless, for whatever motivation to be divisive2125and to run down this country in the eyes of our immigrants--I2126think that's what their motivation is--the Democrats keep2127talking about these mystery people.2128    I would think that if they existed, sooner or later, I2129would at least run into one of those people, but I have yet to2130run into any. I just want to make that point in case we may2131have new arrivals in this country who might think--when2132President Biden and various Democrats talk about this huge2133movement in this country, they know that at least I have yet to2134find one person who fits the bill.2135    OK. Now, Mr. Spencer, you were cutoff before, and I'm going2136to give you just a few minutes. Is there anything you wanted to2137say that weren't able to say when you were cutoff?2138    Mr. Spencer. To be honest with you, I don't remember when2139the last time I was cutoff was, so--2140    Mr. Grothman. OK. I'm from Wisconsin, and in Wisconsin, we2141have a military base called Fort McCoy. There was a huge number2142of people who, on very short notice, inundated Fort McCoy.2143Eventually, Federal prosecutors charged a couple of the Afghans2144who were there with serious crimes, sexual assault of a minor,2145committing domestic violence. I felt, in any event, that these2146incidents underscored how inadequate vetting happened before2147all these people were put in Wisconsin.2148    In any event, do you know about how many Afghans did the2149Biden Administration bring to the U.S.?2150    Mr. Spencer. Oh, I believe it was about 85,000.2151    Mr. Grothman. I'll help you. My cheat sheet here says2152200,000.2153    Mr. Spencer. OK. I'm sure that's much more accurate. In any2154case, vetting was essentially nonexistent. These were people2155who were, for the most part, not people who helped us in2156Afghanistan, but that was--by the acknowledgment of Alejandro2157Mayorkas, that they were people who didn't have the Special2158Immigrant Visas that were given to people who hated us there.2159    What's noteworthy about the people who were arrested at2160Fort McCoy is that they said they didn't know that they were2161violating American law when they molested these young people2162because what they did was legal in Afghanistan. That is an2163indication and microcosm of the dangers of bringing over2164Sharia-adherent Muslims. They are adherent of a legal system2165and cultural mores that are radically different from American2166law and strip--if we allow this, they will strip protections2167from all kinds of people who will be their victims.2168    Mr. Grothman. OK. This did have serious and tragic2169consequences, didn't it, by not vetting these folks?2170    Mr. Spencer. I'm sorry? I didn't catch that.2171    Mr. Grothman. This did have serious consequences, not2172vetting these folks?2173    Mr. Spencer. Absolutely. Well, one example is the Afghans2174who were arrested at Fort McCoy, but there's also the fact that2175ISIS as well as the Taliban and al-Qaida are quite active in2176Afghanistan. You bring over a lot of Afghans without any2177vetting. You're bringing over almost certainly ISIS, al-Qaida,2178and Taliban operatives who believe that they have a2179responsibility before Allah to wage jihad in the infidel land.2180That's going to be something we're going to be seeing the2181consequences of for years to come.2182    Mr. Grothman. OK. What can Congress do to strengthen laws2183to prevent this type of mass importation of unvetted aliens?2184    Mr. Spencer. Well, for one thing, vetting would be in2185order. That needs to be intelligent and thorough, comprehensive2186vetting that is not just are you a member of a terrorist group,2187which is what it's been for years, but something--questions2188that are much more specific that will tease out attitudes and2189then make it a deportable offense to lie when you are answering2190these questions.2191    Mr. Grothman. OK. Any one of the three of you on the right2192side of me, are we right now actively tracking instances of2193Sharia law and the patterns in places where it's most2194prevalent? Like Google is coming on to find something on that?2195    Mr. Gele. To my knowledge, the U.S. Government is not doing2196that whatsoever. The Center for Security Policy attempted that2197a couple decades ago, basically looking through Louisiana2198Appellate cases. They were able to find dozens on dozens. I've2199been trying to monitor it. It is very difficult to monitor2200because most cases--first, arbitration tribunals are not2201reported. Most District court cases are not reported at the2202State level, and properly using the search engines that tease2203out the cases at the State appellate level is tricky.2204    Mr. Roy. The gentleman is over his time. Did the other two2205want to quickly answer that question since he addressed all2206three of you? Just quickly, do you know anything additional to2207add?2208    Mr. Spencer. That's exactly what I was going to say.2209    Mr. Roy. OK.2210    Mr. Spencer. The U.S. Government is not doing this.2211    Mr. Roy. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin.2212    Mr. Grothman. Thanks. They might wind up getting results2213they don't want.2214    Mr. Spencer. Exactly.2215    Mr. Roy. Well, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for his2216question. I thank the witnesses. Thank you for your2217participation. This concludes today's hearing, and we thank2218you.2219    Without objection, all Members will have five legislative2220days to submit additional written questions or for the2221witnesses or additional materials for the record.2222    Without objection, this hearing is adjourned.2223    [Whereupon, at 3:56 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]22242225    All materials submitted for the record by Members of the2226Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government can2227be found at: https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent2228.aspx?EventID=118945.22292230                                 [all]