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 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-136 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]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-136 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