Skip to comments.Oklahoma's ban on Sharia law thrown out by federal judge
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.
Her. Her name is Vicki - isn’t that special? - Miles-LaGrange.
Beliefs are personal and one’s own business. Actions based on one’s beliefs are required to be within the limits established by the Constitution.
For example, one may believe in cannibalism, but as long as no act is taken there can be no violation of the Constitution.
Belief and acts are different.
We should be way past tar & feathers.
All I needed to see was her hyphenated name and I knew she hadn’t a brain, just a deep hatred for men and the country.
Why are Republican governors so ultra scared to confont & nullify these liberal ass judge's ruling? Kind of like in Wisconsin, half of what Walker & the Repubs passed in legislation has been thrown out or held up by liberal ass judges. I think that Repub governors & AG's need to grow some balls and openly throw down challenges & nullifications to these dumb ass judges. Quit being so damn conciliatory & acquiescent!
I can’t tell if our elected officials are trying to suck up to Muslims or just taking the “it isn’t reality if I don’t acknowledge it” to an extreme and insane level.
Either way, freedom’s days are numbered and the number is fast approaching zero.
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.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
She is confusing the ban on Sharia law as being a violation of the Establishment Clause with what it really is:
A ban on a foreign law [Sharia] from circumventing the supreme law of the land [US Constitution] and the laws enacted in support thereof ...
She'll be reversed.
By who? As I said in my previous posting, the Olkahoma governor (and other Repub governors) need to grow a pair of balls IMMEDIATELY and issue an executive ruling that nullifies & revokes the liberal ass judge's ruling.
To Repub governors & AG's I say this...... QUIT BEING SO DAMN COMPLIANT & CONCILIATORY! We are at war in this country against the liberals socialist & islam ideology and it is long past time that we need to confront & fight back against these liberal socialist islamic bastards!
This little tract was widely circulated by moi and hundreds of others during the 70s as the Carter fiasco unwound into its well-deserved death spiral.
Never knew who wrote it.
Here are a few examples of Sharia Law:
Theft is punishable by amputation of the right hand.
Criticizing or denying any part of the Quran is punishable by death.
Criticizing or denying Muhammad is a prophet is punishable by death.
Criticizing or denying Allah, the moon god of Islam is punishable by death.
A Muslim who becomes a non-Muslim is punishable by death.
A non-Muslim who leads a Muslim away from Islam is punishable by death.
A non-Muslim man who marries a Muslim woman is punishable by death.
A man can marry an infant girl and consummate the marriage when she is 9 years old.
Girls’ clitoris should be cut (per Muhammad’s words in Book 41, Kitab Al-Adab, Hadith 5251).
A woman can have 1 husband, but a man can have up to 4 wives; Muhammad can have more.
A man can unilaterally divorce his wife but a woman needs her husband’s consent to divorce.
A man can beat his wife for insubordination.
Testimonies of four male witnesses are required to prove rape against a woman.
A woman who has been raped cannot testify in court against her rapist(s).
A woman’s testimony in court, allowed only in property cases, carries half the weight of a man’s.
A female heir inherits half of what a male heir inherits.
A woman cannot drive a car, as it leads to fitnah (upheaval).
A woman cannot speak alone to a man who is not her husband or relative.
Meat to be eaten must come from animals that have been sacrificed to Allah - i.e., be Halal.
Muslims should engage in Taqiyya and lie to non-Muslims to advance Islam.
The list goes on.
How? Seriously, how do you propose to do this? With our House full of RINO's and a Degener-crat Senate?
If you're talking about insurrection, then count me in.
Yes, I said that. You listening, HomoBarach?
I agree. But we still haven't even gotten to that stage and one has to start somewhere!
I think it’s time to give them the fight that they want.
To answer your question, the governors know they’d be vilified as a new George Wallace, and they have no stomach for that kind of fight.
It could also be that they have accepted what all Americans are conditioned to accept; the bogus idea of judicial supremacy. Let’s face it, the Courts have given themselves more power than they were ever intended to have, and the other federal branches and the State governments have just meekly accepted it. This of course only encourages judges to be more brazen in their usurpations. And after decades of this happening the American public has come to accept it as the proper order of things.
I’d love to see judicial supremacy successfully challenged in the way you propose. But I just don’t think it’s going to happen.
It’s time to stop calling Islam a religion. But, if it’s officially called an ideology it still couldn’t be banned. I’ve always said our constitution will be used against us. That’s probably why Franklin didn’t think the experiment would last.
“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.”
Just think about that for a moment. How many laws are their on the books that are to prevent something from occurring.
Why do they have gun laws. Because they think it will prevent a crime from concurring. Note that the crime has not yet occurred. You could come up with a very long list. Half of today’s laws would have to thrown out as unconstitutional based on this reasoning.
But as we know this rule only applies when it is needed for a certain political side.
Cops in America are taught to ever surrender to the tax payer and to be ready to surrender to muslims before they ever think surrendering to us.
In a way the law was bad to begin with, it should have not mentioned Sharia or Islam but instead mentioned the Sharia system BY DESCRIPTION and described things that were endemic to Sharia without actually mentioning it. That way when CAIR started to bitch about we could say “What the hell are complaining about this law is against any “Political system that is ingrained in religion” “ Instead they opened it up to be cancelled out by an affirmative action POS judge.
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.