Under the Federal Arbitration Act in US arbitration is allowed only for voluntary civil disputes and cannot override constitutional rights
Jewish rabbinical courts have long functioned within U.S. arbitration law through formal agreements while Islamic arbitration bodies vary in structure
U.S. officials, including Texas Governor Greg Abbott, have called for investigations into whether certain Islamic tribunals exceed legal limits
Have you ever heard of arbitration courts? Arbitration courts are a form of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). In this system, disputes are resolved outside traditional courts, and parties voluntarily agree to have their case decided by a neutral arbitrator rather than by a judge appointed by the state. In the United States, arbitration is commonly used for civil, commercial, and contractual disputes. Its scope is limited by federal and state law. Arbitrators do not have the power to impose criminal penalties or override constitutional rights.
The legal foundation for arbitration in the United States was established with the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) of 1925. The Act declared arbitration agreements to be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, provided they meet basic legal standards such as voluntariness and fairness. This framework allows individuals to resolve disputes according to mutually agreed rules. Over time, U.S. law has permitted arbitration under foreign or religious legal systems, as long as the process complies with American law and public policy.
Several major arbitration institutions operate in the United States, including the American Arbitration Association (AAA) and Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services (JAMS). Alongside these secular bodies, religious arbitration panels also function within the U.S. legal system. These panels operate as private arbitration forums and rely on written agreements between consenting parties. Religious arbitration decisions are enforceable only when they comply with federal and state laws and do not violate public policy.
Jewish rabbinical arbitration courts, known as Beth Din, have operated in the United States for decades within the framework of the Federal Arbitration Act. These courts function through formal arbitration agreements and are structured to comply with U.S. legal standards.
Islamic arbitration and mediation bodies also exist in parts of the United States, often operating through mosques or community organizations. These bodies typically handle matters such as marriage disputes, religious divorces, inheritance issues, and community conflicts. In some cases, proceedings take place informally and without written arbitration agreements. Reports have raised concerns about procedural transparency, gender-based evidentiary standards derived from traditional interpretations of Islamic law, and whether participation is fully voluntary.
According to reporting by The Washington Times, one such body, the Islamic Tribunal of Dallas, founded in 2014 as a volunteer mediation service, was handling roughly 300 cases annually by 2024. Reports alleged that the tribunal followed traditional rules in which a woman’s testimony was valued as half that of a man’s in certain matters. Women were also reported to have been pressured into accepting religious divorces without receiving mahr (dowry), leaving them financially vulnerable. Under U.S. law, any arbitration decision issued by such a body is enforceable only if it meets FAA requirements and complies with constitutional and statutory protections.
The United Kingdom is often cited for comparison. Britain permitted the formation of Sharia councils beginning in 1982, but it does not have a separate Sharia legal system. Sharia councils are informal bodies with no legal authority under English law. They primarily address personal matters such as marriage, religious divorce, and inheritance, and their decisions are not legally binding.
The Muslim Arbitration Tribunal (MAT), established in the early 2000s, operates under the UK Arbitration Act 1996, which allows private arbitration in civil disputes between consenting adults. MAT rulings must comply with English law and are subject to judicial oversight. A 2018 UK Home Office review confirmed that Sharia councils have no legal jurisdiction but raised concerns that some practices resembled a parallel system, particularly affecting women in unregistered religious marriages.
In the United States, arbitration must operate strictly within the framework of American law. Differences between U.S. law and traditional interpretations of Sharia law are most visible in areas such as inheritance, testimony, and family rights. U.S. law requires gender equality, equal evidentiary standards, and statutory protections for children and spouses. Any arbitration ruling—religious or otherwise—that conflicts with these principles cannot be enforced by American courts.
See Also: Sharia Is Not One Law, But Three Layers: Why Europe ‘Doesn’t Understand Islam,’ Says Loz Moore
On November 19, 2025, Texas Governor Greg Abbott sent letters to North Texas district attorneys, sheriffs, the Texas Attorney General, and the Texas Department of Public Safety expressing concern about entities allegedly presenting themselves as legal courts enforcing Islamic law. He urged investigations into whether such entities were issuing binding rulings or operating outside state and federal law. Abbott stated that the U.S. Constitution’s religious protections do not allow religious courts to bypass American law, and that legal disputes in Texas must be decided according to principles of American due process.
Investigations have focused on whether participation in such arbitration is voluntary, whether proceedings comply with arbitration law, and whether any rulings exceed the legal limits of private dispute resolution. Courts generally review these issues only when enforcement is sought or formal complaints are filed.
Overall, arbitration courts in the United States function as contract-based dispute resolution mechanisms subject to legal oversight. Religious arbitration, including Jewish and Islamic systems, is permitted within defined limits. Jewish rabbinical courts have largely adapted to American arbitration law through formal structures and compliance mechanisms, while Islamic arbitration bodies are newer and vary in their organization and conformity with U.S. legal standards.
Suggested Reading:
