No... the law prevents OTHER laws -- religious or otherwise -- that conflict with the U.S. Constitution from being given consideration.
“No... the law prevents OTHER laws — religious or otherwise — that conflict with the U.S. Constitution from being given consideration.”
You don’t need to pass a law to do that. The Constitution is already “the supreme law of the land.”
Here’s what the Court said (from the article):
The court ruled that, for starters, the law discriminated on the basis of religion. Furthermore, the state failed to articulate any sort of plausible justification for the law. Wrote Matheson:
Appellants do not identify any actual problem the challenged amendment seeks to solve. Indeed, they admitted at the preliminary injunction hearing that they did not know of even a single instance where an Oklahoma court had applied Sharia law or used the legal precepts of other nations or cultures, let alone that such applications or uses had resulted in concrete problems in Oklahoma.
The plaintiff in the case, Muneer Awad, the executive director for the Oklahoma chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, sued over the law, arguing that the law denies him rights that are available to people of other religions. For instance, according to the Denver Post, Awad said his will instructs a judge to look to Islamic precepts in situations where Awad’s wishes aren’t clear. The initiative, Awad said, would prevent a judge from doing that, even though the judge could do that for people who are Christian or Jewish.”
Seems quite a sensible ruling when you understand their thinking.