WASHINGTON, D.C. — Rep. Harriet Hageman (R-WY) delivered a sharp, 42-second reminder of how quickly legal debates can turn into real-world consequences, especially for women and children, during a House Judiciary hearing focused on Sharia-based legal systems and their compatibility with the U.S. Constitution.
In the clip, Hageman presses a hearing witness (identified in written testimony for the hearing as attorney Stephen M. Gelé) about why women and minors face a higher risk in Sharia-based tribunal systems, particularly in family law and custody disputes.
The exchange is short, but the underlying argument is blunt: if a tribunal’s rules don’t track American constitutional standards, participants can wind up with something that looks like “justice” in name only, minus the due process protections Americans tend to enjoy (and take for granted).
What Happened in the Hearing
Hageman’s line of questioning zeroes in on two core concerns raised by the witness:
① Discrimination risk for women
The witness argues that many Sharia-based frameworks are inconsistent with modern American legal norms, particularly around gender equality and equal protection.
② Custody decisions that don’t use “best interests of the child”
In U.S. family courts, “best interests of the child” is the north star. The testimony argues Sharia-based approaches can instead rely on fixed rules (like age thresholds or specific schools of interpretation)—which may not weigh a child’s needs the same way American courts do.
Hageman then drives the constitutional point home, asking whether people drawn into such systems could lose due process and equal protection rights. In the clip circulating online, the witness’s answer is unequivocal.
The Bigger Context: This wasn’t a Random Hearing
The moment comes from a House Judiciary Subcommittee hearing titled:
“Sharia-Free America: Why Political Islam & Sharia Law Are Incompatible with the U.S. Constitution” was held this week in the Rayburn House Office Building.
The committee’s stated purpose was to examine “efforts to establish alternative, Sharia law-based legal and civic institutions,” and whether those systems violate constitutional rights or federal law.
Gelé’s written testimony argues that Sharia-based arbitration tribunals and foreign judgments can create legal outcomes that clash with U.S. public policy, especially in custody matters, and may “lessen due process” when they lack American court formalities.
Critics Say the Hearing’s Framing Targets Religion, not Rights
As you’d expect in 2026 Washington, this didn’t land as a tidy bipartisan civics lesson.
Democrats on the committee framed the hearing as an attack on religious freedom and warned against politically motivated fear-based messaging.
Outside Washington, backlash also emerged over the premise and tone of the hearing, with reporting noting skepticism about whether there’s evidence of Sharia being imposed on people against their will in the U.S., and criticism of some rhetoric used by Republicans during the session.
Where Legislation Enters the Chat
The hearing also nods toward proposed federal policy changes, most notably H.R. 5722, the “Preserving a Sharia-Free America Act,” introduced in October 2025. The bill proposes amending immigration law to bar entry (and trigger removal) for non-citizens deemed to “adhere to Sharia law.”
Whatever your take, that proposal is part of why this topic keeps resurfacing: a viral clip is one thing; a federal standard with broad and vague definitions is another.
Why Wyoming Readers Should Care
Wyoming isn’t exactly known for Sharia tribunals popping up next to the DMV. But Hageman’s core warning is about a broader issue that does translate anywhere:
When legal disputes move into private tribunals, religious or otherwise, power imbalances matter.
Family law is where that gets especially serious. Custody, divorce, financial support, and the kind of “voluntary” agreements that may not feel voluntary when one party has more leverage.
Or as the non-sarcastic version would put it: the Constitution is a pretty good deal, and people notice when someone tries to swap it out for a different rulebook.
AntlersArch founder and the voice behind Teton Tattle.
