Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Oklahoma's ban on Sharia law thrown out by federal judge
Kresta in the afternoon ^ | August 17, 2013 | David Harper

Posted on 08/17/2013 3:05:54 PM PDT by NYer

An Oklahoma constitutional amendment that would bar the state's courts from considering or using Sharia law was ruled unconstitutional Thursday by a federal judge in Oklahoma City.

In finding the law in violation of the U.S. Constitution's Establishment Clause, U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange issued a permanent injunction prohibiting the certification of the results of the state question that put the Sharia law ban into the state constitution.

"While the public has an interest in the will of the voters being carried out, the Court finds that the public has a more profound and long-term interest in upholding an individual's constitutional rights," the judge wrote.

Muneer Awad, a Muslim and American citizen who was executive director of the Oklahoma Chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations at the time, filed the lawsuit on Nov. 4, 2010, seeking to block the so-called "Save Our State" constitutional amendment that had been approved by 70 percent of Oklahoma voters two days earlier.

Awad claimed that State Question 755 violated the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Miles-LaGrange issued a temporary restraining order on Nov. 8, 2010, finding that enjoining the certification of the election results for SQ 755 would not be adverse to the public interest.

On Nov. 29, 2010, she issued a preliminary injunction, finding that Awad had legal standing and that SQ 755 likely violated both the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause.

Miles-LaGrange also found then that the balance of harms weighed strongly in favor of Awad, that the alleged violation of Awad's First Amendment rights constituted irreparable injury and that the public interest demanded protection of these rights.

On Jan. 10, 2012, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Miles-Grange's preliminary injunction ruling, and on July 29, 2012, the lawsuit was amended, adding four additional plaintiffs.

In her opinion Thursday, Miles-LaGrange noted that the 10th Circuit wrote in January 2012 that "when the law that voters wish to enact is likely unconstitutional, their interests do not outweigh Mr. Awad's in having his constitutional rights protected."

Miles-LaGrange found "that any harm that would result from permanently enjoining the certification of the election results is further minimized in light of the undisputed fact that the amendment at issue was to be a preventative measure and that the concern that it seeks to address has yet to occur."

She pointed out in a footnote that attorneys defending the amendment at the November 2010 preliminary injunction hearing admitted that "they did not know of any instance where an Oklahoma court had applied Sharia law or used the legal precepts of other nations or cultures."

Miles-LaGrange also rejected the argument that the amendment could be salvaged by severing certain language that specifically mentioned Sharia law. That option would have retained less precise wording saying that Oklahoma courts "shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures."

The judge wrote in her order that "it is abundantly clear that the primary purpose of the amendment was to specifically target and outlaw Sharia law and to act as a preemptive strike against Sharia law to protect Oklahoma from a perceived 'threat' of Sharia law being utilized in Oklahoma courts."

She added that the plaintiffs "have shown that the voters would not have approved the amendment without the unconstitutional provisions."

She noted that "the public debate, public discussions, articles, radio ads and robocalls" regarding SQ 755 all primarily and overwhelmingly focused on Sharia law. "Given this context, the court finds any reasonable voter would have perceived SQ 755 as a referendum on Sharia law," she wrote.

Awad moved to New York City in August 2012 to accept a position with another CAIR affiliate, according to Thursday's opinion.

On Thursday night, Adam Soltani, the current executive director of CAIR's Oklahoma Chapter and a fellow plaintiff in the lawsuit, issued a statement in which he said: "As Oklahomans, we are incredibly thrilled at the decision and applaud the judicial system for upholding our constitutional rights. This is a victory not only for Oklahoma Muslims, but for all Oklahomans and all Americans."

Ryan Kiesel, executive director of the ACLU of Oklahoma, issued a written statement saying: "This law unfairly singled out one faith and one faith only. This amendment was nothing more than a solution in search of a problem. We're thrilled that it has been struck down."

Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt said in the wake of the appellate court decision in January 2012 that his office "will continue to defend" the state's position.

However, spokeswoman Diane Clay said Pruitt would have no comment on Thursday night.

Despite the legal setbacks for SQ 755, Gov. Mary Fallin signed House Bill 1060 into law last April. Proponents said that without specifically mentioning Sharia law, the measure would prohibit the application of foreign laws when it would violate either the Oklahoma Constitution or the U.S. Constitution.



TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; US: Oklahoma; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: mohammedanism; oklahoma; shariahlaw; sharialaw
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-136 next last

1 posted on 08/17/2013 3:05:54 PM PDT by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: NYer

Time to throw out the Judge.


2 posted on 08/17/2013 3:06:32 PM PDT by Hattie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

F%$# the judge. Make him come out there and enforce his own lame ruling.


3 posted on 08/17/2013 3:06:56 PM PDT by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

um... wouldn’t USING sharia law be violating the establishment clause???


4 posted on 08/17/2013 3:07:45 PM PDT by Mr. K (Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics, and then Democrat Talking Points.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

BTW this judge’s ruling redefines ironic. What an idiot.


5 posted on 08/17/2013 3:07:56 PM PDT by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Isn’t she supposed to be wearing a hood with that black burqa?


6 posted on 08/17/2013 3:07:56 PM PDT by FlingWingFlyer (Former Rodeo Clown Sensitivity Training class valedictorian.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

In finding the law in violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Establishment Clause
_________________________________________

Idiot judge

Thats what sharia law is, nutso..

The establishment of a state religion...


7 posted on 08/17/2013 3:08:36 PM PDT by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Didn’t the judge get it exactly backwards? Wouldn’t allowing Sharia law amount to the establishment of a state religion — as it is in every Islamic nation.


8 posted on 08/17/2013 3:10:11 PM PDT by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hattie

My first thought.


9 posted on 08/17/2013 3:12:26 PM PDT by WKUHilltopper (And yet...we continue to tolerate this crap...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NYer
" ....noted that the 10th Circuit Century wrote in January 2012 ...."
10 posted on 08/17/2013 3:13:44 PM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Another brilliant Bill Clinton appointee.


11 posted on 08/17/2013 3:14:05 PM PDT by CaptainK (...please make it stop. Shake a can of pennies at it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
 photo HOWLONGSTANDASIDE_zpsb013cc3c.jpg


12 posted on 08/17/2013 3:19:39 PM PDT by Dick Bachert (“To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.”- Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

What was “unconstitutional” was this clown judge’s ruling. This needs to be appealed to a court with “judges” who have a little more intelligence than this ditz. If such a court exists.


13 posted on 08/17/2013 3:22:02 PM PDT by FlingWingFlyer (Former Rodeo Clown Sensitivity Training class valedictorian.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Clinton appointee.

14 posted on 08/17/2013 3:22:05 PM PDT by stinkerpot65 (Global warming is a Marxist lie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Brings home my "no chicks" rule when it comes to folks seeking political office, appointments or judgeships.

Chicks are insane 25% of the time and subject to twisting off 100% of the time.

15 posted on 08/17/2013 3:22:11 PM PDT by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Another traitorous leftist judge making a mockery of this nation's judicial system. One of the problems that must be cleaned up after the revolution.

16 posted on 08/17/2013 3:22:15 PM PDT by IbJensen (Liberals are like Slinkies, good for nothing, but you smile as you push them down the stairs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stinkerpot65

Sharia law is not the law in this country


17 posted on 08/17/2013 3:22:23 PM PDT by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: NYer
The "judge".


18 posted on 08/17/2013 3:23:27 PM PDT by raybbr (I weep over my sons' future in this Godforsaken country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hattie
The JUDGE appears to ...well let this speak what it WILL.


19 posted on 08/17/2013 3:25:22 PM PDT by MeshugeMikey (This Message NOT Approved By The N.S.A.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NYer

I’ve already started dipping my ammo in lard, for use on Muslim threats...


20 posted on 08/17/2013 3:25:29 PM PDT by traditional1 (Amerika.....Providing public housing for the Mulatto Messiah)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raybbr
before she CAME OUT evidently


21 posted on 08/17/2013 3:26:19 PM PDT by MeshugeMikey (This Message NOT Approved By The N.S.A.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K

My first thought too.


22 posted on 08/17/2013 3:26:53 PM PDT by Calvin Locke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: NYer

How about we partially institute sharia law?

Moochelle and Hildabeast and Piglosi need to wear burkas!


23 posted on 08/17/2013 3:30:23 PM PDT by rfreedom4u (I have a copy of the Constitution! And I'm not afraid to use it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Let the honor killings begin.


24 posted on 08/17/2013 3:31:30 PM PDT by SkyDancer (Live your life in such a way that the Westboro church will want to picket your funeral.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA

You could cut the irony with a scimitar. This “judge” does believe the constitution is a suicide pact.


25 posted on 08/17/2013 3:33:00 PM PDT by stormhill (Guns Save Lives!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Explain to me....

If Oklahoma passes a law that says:
“Based on the precepts of Sharia....”
“According to Sharia...”
“To comply with Sharia...”
“To allow Sharia...”

or any other wording, how is that not a clear violation of “Congress shall make no respecting an establishment of religion..”?


26 posted on 08/17/2013 3:35:09 PM PDT by Bryan24 (When in doubt, move to the right..........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
So now we have two systems of jurisprudence?

Then someone please tell me how this doesn`t violate the equal protection clause and rulings like Brown vs. Board of Education?

27 posted on 08/17/2013 3:36:50 PM PDT by nomad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MeshugeMikey

Yeah, I wondered about that. No mention of a male spouse anywhere on the web.


28 posted on 08/17/2013 3:38:19 PM PDT by raybbr (I weep over my sons' future in this Godforsaken country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: NYer

So now the ACLU is ok with the courts using sharia law.

What will they do when a US sharia court decides a thief should have his/her hand cut off or that a gay person be executed??


29 posted on 08/17/2013 3:40:32 PM PDT by RginTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Every day, another outrage. Another state CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT tossed out by a single Leftist blackrobe.

Can anyone dispute that we are no longer a republic?!!!!

30 posted on 08/17/2013 3:40:57 PM PDT by Jacquerie (To restore the 10th Amendment, repeal the 17th.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K
um... wouldn’t USING sharia law be violating the establishment clause???

In normal America, yes. But we live in bizzaro America now. We're talking the universe with the bearded Spock here.

31 posted on 08/17/2013 3:42:17 PM PDT by southern rock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Since when does a FEDERAL judge have any jurisdiction over an OKAHOMA vote of the people?


32 posted on 08/17/2013 3:42:40 PM PDT by The Truth Will Make You Free
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raybbr

Sharia law would stone to death homosexuals.


33 posted on 08/17/2013 3:43:03 PM PDT by Rusty0604
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Dick Bachert
Wow ... I am with you on this but how do we ignite a fuse under those who are dozing? Someone posted this "warning" on another thread. Unless we act ... and soon, this is our future.

Belgistan? Sharia Showdown Looms In Brussels

Everyone loves to posts comments from the safety of their home based computer. What we need is a leader ... someone willing to take the first step and rally the troops. We need someone to produce a film of Europe now vs 50 years ago.

34 posted on 08/17/2013 3:47:33 PM PDT by NYer ( "Run from places of sin as from the plague."--St John Climacus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: The Truth Will Make You Free
Second paragraph of Article VI of the US Constitution:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

It's known as the Supremacy Clause.

35 posted on 08/17/2013 3:49:07 PM PDT by Publius (And so, night falls on civilization.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Bryan24
Explain to me....

If Oklahoma passes a law that says:
“Based on the precepts of Sharia....”
“According to Sharia...”
“To comply with Sharia...”
“To allow Sharia...”

or any other wording, how is that not a clear violation of “Congress shall make no respecting an establishment of religion..”?

Logically it doesn't the underlines shows exactly what the first amendment applies to, and since there is no congress in the states, incorporating it wouldn't do jack to the states… except that the evil incorporation does use the 1st amendment conjoined with the 14th to bind the states; this means that there is some magic whereby the actual text is changed and then applied. It is by such that the FedGov (especially the courts) strip us of rights.

Question: when will these evils become insufferable?

36 posted on 08/17/2013 3:54:56 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: southern rock

The New America.

Where school districts are REQUIRED to give muslims time off to go to mecca but an American Christian woman can be arrested for praying on the school steps.


37 posted on 08/17/2013 3:55:12 PM PDT by Cowgirl of Justice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie
Question: what happens if the State says to the judge shut the hell up, you have no authority here and then just ignore the ruling?
38 posted on 08/17/2013 3:56:33 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: NYer
They have a ban U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange page on Facebook

BAN-US-District-Judge-Vicki-Miles-LaGrange-who-supports-Sharia

and here is an interesting quote they had on it. Can anyone confirm if the Kenyan said this?


39 posted on 08/17/2013 3:56:55 PM PDT by GrandJediMasterYoda (Someday our schools will teach the difference between "lose" and "loose")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

I find it hilarious when liberals (and RINOs like fatass Christie) try to lecture conservatives about how we’re just being “paranoid” about the application of Sharia. This is ALREADY HAPPENING in Europe! “Sharia courts” effectively making rape and murder legal if you identify as Muslim.


40 posted on 08/17/2013 3:57:05 PM PDT by RB156
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MeshugeMikey

How interesting.

A Lesbian Black Muslim?

Ruling that the establishment of a regime of Sharia law cannot be prohibited?

How interesting.


41 posted on 08/17/2013 3:57:33 PM PDT by Regulator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
Question: what happens if the State says to the judge “shut the hell up, you have no authority here” and then just ignore the ruling?

If we were actually operating under the U.S. Constitution, the judge would have to shut up and go away.

Unfortunately, that is no longer the case.

42 posted on 08/17/2013 3:59:34 PM PDT by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Publius
Problem: the Federal Constitution prohibits congress from enacting the establishment of a religion… how is barring sharia law from the State's own legal-system establishing a religion? Moreover, how can the first-amendment, which prohibits Congress from doing so, prohibit the states from doing so without the mechanism itself altering the text of the first amendment? And if the text thereof is altered, by what authority is it altered?
43 posted on 08/17/2013 4:00:09 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: stinkerpot65

Figures that she is a black woman.


44 posted on 08/17/2013 4:02:32 PM PDT by Truth2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: NYer

It’s about time to bring out the tar and feathers...


45 posted on 08/17/2013 4:03:56 PM PDT by Gritty (This war against Islamism is being lost because it cannot even be acknowledged- Mark Steyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stinkerpot65

Say no more.


46 posted on 08/17/2013 4:05:08 PM PDT by NoKoolAidforMe (I'm clinging to my God and my guns. You can keep the change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

The 14th Amendment has been viewed by the federal courts as incorporating the Bill of Rights into the state constitutions. The 1st Amendment stands as written, but is incorporated upon the states by the 14th. That’s how the courts view it.


47 posted on 08/17/2013 4:06:25 PM PDT by Publius (And so, night falls on civilization.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; cardinal4; ColdOne; ...

Thanks NYer.


48 posted on 08/17/2013 4:07:17 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (It's no coincidence that some "conservatives" echo the hard left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Dick Bachert
photo HOWLONGSTANDASIDE_zpsb013cc3c.jpg

anyone know who wrote this..???

49 posted on 08/17/2013 4:10:23 PM PDT by unread
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
I don't know. It would be grand to see a governor stand up and defy the ruling. Let the stinkin’ Left compare the governor to George Wallace, as they most assuredly would do. It matters not.
50 posted on 08/17/2013 4:11:04 PM PDT by Jacquerie (To restore the 10th Amendment, repeal the 17th.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-136 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson