WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 2139

Prohibits application of foreign laws in Missouri

2026 Regular Session Introduced by Jeff Coleman and 5 co-sponsors

Prohibits applying foreign law in Missouri courts or agencies if it would violate US or Missouri constitutional rights, with limited legal exceptions.

Reported Do Pass (H) - AYES: 9 NOES: 2 PRESENT: 0
#contractsandcontractors #religion
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 2139

Summary of HB 2139 (2026) – Missouri No Shari’a Act / Application of Foreign Law

1) Purpose and intent

  • The bill seeks to prohibit the application of foreign law, legal codes, or systems in Missouri courts, arbitrations, and government agencies if such law would deny the fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges guaranteed by the United States Constitution or the Missouri Constitution.
  • A primary stated target is Sharia law, but the bill’s scope includes any foreign law that would contravene constitutional protections.
  • The measure is framed as protecting constitutional rights and maintaining state sovereignty and the rule of law.

2) Key provisions and changes

  • New statutes added:

    • 506.602: Foreign law prohibitions
    • Defines “foreign law, legal code, or system” as any legal framework from outside the United States, including international organizations and tribunals.
    • Prohibits applying any foreign law that denies US or Missouri constitutional rights; such documents or court decisions purporting to apply such law are void and unenforceable.
    • Enumerates limited exceptions:
      • does not disapprove or abrogate existing Missouri Supreme Court precedent;
      • does not limit ecclesiastical matters of religious organizations (e.g., clergy matters, doctrine interpretation);
      • does not apply to corporations/partnerships/associations that voluntarily subject themselves to foreign law or courts;
      • does not apply where federal law preempts state law (including treaties or international agreements).
    • 508.074: Transfer prohibition
    • No state court, arbitration panel, tribunal, or administrative agency shall transfer a civil action if the transfer would result in applying foreign law that would violate or likely violate constitutional rights.

  • Overall effect:

    • Contracts, judgments, or arbitration decisions that rely on foreign law or that mandate a foreign tribunal could be void or unenforceable if they would violate constitutional rights.
    • The bill is designed to prevent foreign-law-anchored outcomes in Missouri legal proceedings, subject to the stated carve-outs.

3) Who or what would be affected

  • Legal actors:
    • Missouri state courts, arbitration panels, tribunals, and administrative agencies.
    • Parties in civil actions with cross-border elements or international contracts/arbitrations.
  • Contracts and judgments:
    • Contracts providing for the choice of foreign law (including Sharia law) or for foreign jurisdiction could be void if applying that law would violate constitutional rights.
  • Government processes:
    • Transfers of civil actions between jurisdictions could be blocked if they would result in foreign-law application conflicting with constitutional rights.
  • Carve-outs:
    • Ecclesiastical matters (religious organization governance and doctrine) are exempt.
    • Entities that voluntarily submit to foreign law remain allowed.
    • Federal preemption scenarios still apply.

4) Procedural and timeline aspects

  • The bill is advanced through committee with a House Committee Substitute (HCS) that clarifies scope and protections.
  • Fiscal notes indicate potential, but not quantifiable, impact on general revenue due to possible increases in court costs; estimates suggest any such costs would likely be under $250,000 annually.
  • Not explicitly specifying a retroactive or prospective effective date in the provided text, but typical implementation would follow passage and signing into law.

5) Fiscal and administrative impact (as projected)

  • State government:
    • Potential increase in court costs (unclear amount; OSCA notes possible but unquantified impact, likely under $250k/year).
    • No direct costs anticipated for other state agencies; many agencies anticipate no fiscal impact.
  • Local government and small business:
    • Expected to have no direct fiscal impact.

6) Legislative history (highlights)

  • Sponsor: Rep. Steve Jordan; co-sponsors include John Hewkin, Burt Whaley.
  • The House Committee on the Special Committee on Intergovernmental Affairs reported Do Pass with a Committee Substitute (HCS) by a vote of 10-2.
  • Action history shows progression from introduction in 2026 through House consideration, with public testimony framing the bill as a “No Sharia” measure and eliciting voices both in support and opposition.

7) Public commentary (summarized)

  • Supporters argue the bill protects constitutional rights and prevents enforcement of foreign laws that conflict with US/Missouri rights.
  • Opponents characterize the measure as duplicative of existing constitutional protections and potentially discriminatory toward religious minorities, arguing it could create legal uncertainty and hinder international commerce and cooperation.

Note: This summary focuses on the text and stated effects of HB 2139 as filed and as reflected in committee materials.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.