The 'No Foreign Laws Act': A Solution in Search of a Problem, Threatening Liberty in the Process

Introduction: The Legislative Landscape

The Missouri House Government Efficiency Committee recently debated a piece of legislation known as the “No Foreign Laws Act.” Having passed the State Senate unanimously earlier this month, this bill seeks to enact a sweeping prohibition against the application of foreign or religious laws within Missouri’s state courts and administrative agencies. The legislation mandates that no such external legal framework can be enforced if it contradicts either federal law, Missouri state law, or violates an individual’s fundamental rights. Notably, the bill contains specific carve-outs for corporate entities engaging in voluntary business dealings under foreign law and explicitly bars international organizations—including the World Health Organization (WHO), the United Nations (UN), and the World Economic Forum—from exercising any governmental power within the state. This legislative effort is not born in a vacuum; it is a revival, with the bill’s original title being the more pointed “No Shari’a Act,” and follows a previous version vetoed in 2013 by then-Governor Jay Nixon, who rightly declared it was “seeking to solve a problem that does not exist.”

The Proponents’ Rationale: Sovereignty and Pandemic Grievances

Led by State Senator Nick Schroer (R-Defiance) and supported by colleagues like State Representative Darin Chappell (R-Rogersville), the bill’s advocates frame it as a necessary defense of state sovereignty and the proper separation of powers. Senator Schroer argues that legislators at various levels have been “acquiescing and bending a knee” to foreign entities instead of utilizing the powers explicitly granted by the nation’s founders. The central piece of evidence cited for this perceived encroachment is the COVID-19 pandemic. Proponents point to mask mandates and other public health precautions, often informed by WHO recommendations, as examples of foreign laws being improperly enforced. Representative Chappell characterized the pandemic response as municipalities arbitrarily applying recommendations “without utilizing the force of the legislative process,” framing it as edicts from single individuals.

The Opposition’s Concerns: Unnecessary and Intrusive

Opposition to the bill, voiced by lawmakers such as State Representative Mark Boyko (D-Kirkwood), centers on two primary concerns: its necessity and its potential to infringe upon personal liberty. Critics contend the bill addresses a non-existent threat, echoing Governor Nixon’s decade-old veto. More substantively, they warn it could severely curtail the rights of private citizens to resolve disputes through mutually agreed-upon arbitration governed by religious or foreign legal principles. Representative Boyko expressed a profound concern that the legislation is “taking away people’s rights to actually decide for themselves,” highlighting a critical tension at the heart of the bill: does defending state sovereignty require stripping individuals of their autonomy in private contractual matters?

National Context and Precedent

Missouri’s action is part of a broader national trend. Similar legislation has been proposed at both state and federal levels across the country. Most recently, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed his state’s version into law, while Texas has operated under an “American Laws for American Courts” statute since 2017. This pattern indicates a coordinated political movement leveraging post-pandemic sentiment to enact statutes that formally reject the influence of international bodies and foreign legal traditions.

Analysis: A Dangerous Overcorrection Undermining Foundational Principles

While cloaked in the righteous language of defending the Constitution and state sovereignty, Missouri’s “No Foreign Laws Act” is a profoundly troubling piece of legislation that sacrifices individual liberty on the altar of political symbolism. It represents not a defense of American law, but an assault on the pluralistic and libertarian foundations that have long defined the American experiment.

First, the bill’s genesis in anti-Sharia rhetoric—evident in its original title—cannot be ignored. This roots the legislation not in a genuine, documented crisis of foreign law overriding Missouri courts, but in a culture war narrative designed to stoke fear and division. Legislating against a phantom threat is not governance; it is political theater that erodes public trust in institutions.

Second, and most critically, the bill’s impact on personal freedom is antithetical to core American values. The fundamental right to contract—to voluntarily agree with another party on the terms that will govern a relationship or resolve a dispute—is a cornerstone of a free society. For many religious communities, particularly Orthodox Jewish or Muslim communities, the ability to resolve internal matters through religious arbitration (Beth Din or Sharia councils) is a vital exercise of their First Amendment rights. By prohibiting state courts from enforcing any foreign or religious law that conflicts with state law, this legislation effectively nullifies these private, consensual agreements. It tells citizens: your deeply held religious beliefs and your voluntary private arrangements are subordinate to the state’s monolithic legal authority. This is not protection; it is paternalistic overreach of the highest order.

Third, the conflation of public health recommendations from the WHO during a global pandemic with the “enforcement of foreign law” is a gross mischaracterization. Local authorities adopting science-based guidelines during an emergency is an exercise of their own police powers, not a submission to a foreign sovereign. Using this as a justification for a sweeping statutory change is a classic case of using a temporary crisis to enact permanent, far-reaching restrictions on liberty—a tactic all defenders of freedom should vehemently oppose.

Finally, the bill’s unanimous passage in the Senate is a stark reminder of how bipartisan consensus can sometimes form around the wrong ideas. The absence of debate or dissent in that chamber suggests a failure to rigorously examine the bill’s implications for individual rights. The concerns raised in the House committee by Representative Boyko are precisely the kind of thoughtful scrutiny that should have occurred much earlier in the process.

Conclusion: Liberty Requires Vigilance, Not Symbolic Statutes

The “No Foreign Laws Act” is a solution in search of a problem, but in its pursuit, it creates very real new ones. It undermines religious freedom, constrains private contract, and expands state power over the most personal aspects of citizens’ lives. True commitment to democracy, freedom, and liberty requires defending the individual’s right to opt out of the state’s system voluntarily, so long as no fundamental rights are violated and all parties consent. This bill does the opposite: it insists on state hegemony in all matters.

Missouri legislators, and those in states following this path, must ask themselves: are they defending American law, or are they simply expanding the coercive power of the state at the expense of the individual? The legacy of American liberty is not found in statutes that restrict private choice, but in a framework that maximizes it. This bill, despite its patriotic branding, stands firmly against that noble tradition. It should be rejected not as unnecessary, but as fundamentally illiberal and a step away from the principles of limited government and personal autonomy upon which the republic was founded. The vigilance required to sustain a free society is not vigilance against imagined foreign legal incursions, but vigilance against the state’s own impulse to regulate, homogenize, and control the peaceful, consensual lives of its citizens.