HR-8756-119
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsored by Barry Moore (R-AL)
What it does
This bill would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to add a new eligibility requirement for Special Immigrant Visas (SIVs) issued under INA §203(b)(4). To receive such a visa, an applicant would be required to formally disavow sharia law and take an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution. The bill does not define "sharia law," specify how compliance would be verified, or establish consequences for false statements beyond existing perjury statutes.
Who benefits
Proponents of stricter ideological screening for immigrants. Communities and individuals who believe existing visa vetting processes are insufficient to screen for extremist beliefs. National security agencies that could gain an additional formal screening tool. Domestic workers and professionals who compete with SIV holders for employment.
Who is hurt
Muslim visa applicants who practice sharia as a personal religious code, who would face a requirement not imposed on applicants of other faiths. Afghan and Iraqi nationals who have assisted U.S. military and government operations and rely on SIVs for protection — the primary population served by §203(b)(4). U.S. military and diplomatic personnel whose foreign partners and interpreters may be deterred from applying. Religious liberty advocates who view the requirement as a government-imposed religious test. Immigration attorneys and applicants who would face uncertainty due to the bill's undefined key terms.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the United States has a compelling interest in ensuring that immigrants are committed to constitutional principles, particularly given documented cases of foreign nationals who entered legally and later engaged in or supported extremist activity. They contend that sharia, as practiced in some jurisdictions, includes legal and political doctrines — such as governance structures and criminal codes — that are incompatible with the U.S. Constitution, and that asking applicants to disavow those political dimensions is a legitimate national security measure, not a religious test. They further argue that visa admission is a privilege, not a right, and that Congress has broad plenary power under the Naturalization Clause to set eligibility conditions.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill effectively singles out Muslim applicants for a religious test that no other faith group faces, in direct tension with the First Amendment's Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses and the Fifth Amendment's equal protection component. They contend that "sharia law" is not a monolithic legal system but a broad religious and ethical framework observed differently by over a billion Muslims worldwide, making the disavowal requirement both theologically coercive and practically unenforceable. They further argue that the bill would deter the very Afghan and Iraqi allies — interpreters, contractors, and partners — that the SIV program was specifically designed to protect, undermining U.S. national security interests and treaty obligations.
Constitutional context
The First Amendment's Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause, applied to federal action through the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause, are directly implicated: the bill requires applicants to make a statement about a specific religion's legal code, a requirement not imposed on any other faith. Under Trump v. Hawaii (2018), courts apply rational basis review to entry restrictions under INA §1182(f), giving Congress and the Executive broad deference — but the Court also noted that the First Amendment remains a potential limit. The Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause provides some protections even for non-citizens seeking admission, though these are narrower than for those already present.
Checks and balances
Congress would gain authority to impose a new ideological screening condition on a category of visa applicants; the Executive Branch (DHS/State Department) would implement and administer the oath requirement; federal courts could review constitutional challenges, though judicial deference to Congress on immigration admissions conditions is historically broad under the plenary power doctrine.
Historical precedent
The Ideological Exclusions provisions of the McCarran-Walter Act (1952) allowed the government to deny visas based on political beliefs; many of those provisions were repealed or narrowed by the Immigration Act of 1990, which eliminated most ideological grounds for exclusion.