Yes, a Muslim can be a judge in the United States. The Constitution forbids any religious test for public office, so faith is legally irrelevant to judicial service, and Muslim judges already sit at the municipal, state, and federal levels. Zahid Quraishi became the first Muslim Article III federal judge in 2021, and others have followed.
What the Constitution Says About Religious Tests
Article VI of the Constitution states that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”1Congress.gov. Constitution Annotated Article VI Clause 3 Oaths of Office That sentence removes any legal basis for blocking a judicial candidate because of their religion. It covers every office, federal or state, appointed or elected, and it applies the same way to Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus, and nonbelievers.
The Supreme Court reinforced the point in Torcaso v. Watkins (1961), striking down a Maryland law that required public officials to declare a belief in God. The Court held that government cannot “force a person to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion” as a condition of holding office.2Justia Law. Torcaso v Watkins 367 US 488 (1961) Combined with the First Amendment’s Free Exercise protections, the rule is unambiguous: a candidate’s religion cannot be used to measure their fitness for the bench.
The Constitution sets no formal qualifications at all for Article III federal judges. There is no textual requirement of a law degree, bar membership, or minimum age. In practice, every modern federal judge has been an attorney, but that is a norm, not a legal mandate. Federal judges are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate after Judiciary Committee hearings.3United States Courts. FAQs Federal Judges Most states, by contrast, require a Juris Doctor, a bar license in good standing, and a set number of years in practice. None of those criteria involve religion.
The Oath and the Safeguards Against Personal Bias
Every federal judge takes an oath before hearing a case. Under 28 U.S.C. 453, each one swears to “administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich,” and to “faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties” of the office.4Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 28 USC 453 – Oaths of Justices and Judges State judges take similar oaths under their own constitutions. The oath is binding, not ceremonial.
The oath is only one of several safeguards. Stare decisis requires courts to follow the principles set by higher courts, so a federal district judge must apply precedent from the circuit and the Supreme Court rather than personal views about what the law should be.5Congress.gov. Constitution Annotated – Historical Background on Stare Decisis Doctrine The federal Code of Conduct adds that judges “must comply with the law” and that doing so “helps to maintain public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary.”6United States Courts. Code of Conduct for United States Judges And when a judge’s own views could create a reasonable question about impartiality, federal law requires recusal.7Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 28 US Code 455 – Disqualification of Justice, Judge, or Magistrate Judge
When Religion Does and Doesn’t Trigger Recusal
A judge’s religious identity, standing alone, is not a conflict of interest. The recusal statute looks at personal bias concerning a party, financial interests, and family relationships, not at a judge’s general worldview.7Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 28 US Code 455 – Disqualification of Justice, Judge, or Magistrate Judge A Muslim judge hearing a case that involves a Muslim party is not required to step aside, any more than a Catholic judge is required to step aside whenever a Catholic appears before the court.
Recusal becomes appropriate when the facts of a specific case would cause a reasonable person to question the judge’s impartiality. A direct personal relationship with a party, a public statement fixing the judge’s opinion on the merits, or a financial stake in the outcome are familiar grounds. There is no bright-line rule treating religious belief by itself as disqualifying, and the analysis is fact-specific.
Muslim Judges Currently on the Bench
Zahid Quraishi was confirmed to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey in June 2021 by a bipartisan Senate vote of 81 to 16, making him the first Muslim American Article III federal judge.8United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Senate Confirms Zahid Quraishi to Be District Judge for District of New Jersey Before his nomination he had served as a U.S. magistrate judge and as a military prosecutor in the Army Judge Advocate General’s Corps, deploying to Iraq twice.9Congress.gov. PN394 – 117th Congress (2021-2022)
In 2023, Nusrat Jahan Choudhury was confirmed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.10Federal Judicial Center. Choudhury, Nusrat Jahan That same year, President Biden nominated Adeel Mangi to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which would have made him the first Muslim on a federal appellate court. His nomination was returned to the president when the Senate adjourned in January 2025 without a vote. Muslim judges also serve at various levels of state and local courts, from municipal benches through appellate divisions.
Religious Law Cannot Replace American Law
One concern worth answering directly: a Muslim judge, or any judge, has no authority to substitute religious law for American law. The Supremacy Clause in Article VI makes the Constitution and federal statutes “the supreme Law of the Land” and binds “the Judges in every State” to that rule.11Congress.gov. Article VI Clause 2 Supremacy Clause No religious legal system—Sharia, canon law, halakha, or any other—can override American civil or criminal law in court.
Religious principles reach the courtroom only in narrow private settings. When two parties voluntarily agree to religious arbitration, courts generally respect that agreement on the same terms as any other private arbitration. The limits are strict. A religious arbitration clause cannot override constitutional protections, violate public policy, or produce an unconscionable result. In family law, courts retain authority to reject any private agreement, religious or otherwise, that fails to protect a child’s best interests. The structural answer to the underlying worry is the same whichever judge is on the bench: American judges apply American law.