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 previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 121-136 next last
To: Mr. K

No, it would be the “will of the people”. Chances are the money trail for this goes back to Saudi Arabia.


61 posted on 08/17/2013 4:34:24 PM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: NYer

All of the other arguments aside, what we have here is yet another example of judicial tyranny. The will of the people have been negated by a person in a black robe, and this one happens to be a liberal, black, muslim homosexual to boot! I hope an appeal can be mounted against her ruling.


62 posted on 08/17/2013 4:35:10 PM PDT by ducttape45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
The American judiciary: just can't destroy America fast enough.

Why? It means more power for them.

63 posted on 08/17/2013 4:35:13 PM PDT by jeffc (The U.S. media are our enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CaptainK

People in OK never supported their neighbor, B. Clinton, but they can redeem themselves in 2016 by voting for Hillary over Jebbie.


64 posted on 08/17/2013 4:40:50 PM PDT by Theodore R. (The grand pooh-bahs have spoken: "It's Jebbie's turn!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Truth2012

Did Inhofe vote to confirm this judge?


65 posted on 08/17/2013 4:41:46 PM PDT by Theodore R. (The grand pooh-bahs have spoken: "It's Jebbie's turn!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Oklahoma native educated via ghana, vassar and howard

http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/nGetInfo?jid=1641&cid=999&ctype=na&instate=na

clinton appointment 1994


66 posted on 08/17/2013 4:42:59 PM PDT by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi --)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer; All

Other than the court’s decision essentially being a preemptive strike against the law if there were no actual cases of somebody’s constitutional rights being abridged by the law, I don’t see what the fuss is all about. Both Christians and Muslims are protected, by Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, from state laws which go too far in abridging constitutional privileges and immunities.

What the states should have are recall laws which permit voters to remove and penalize bad-apple judges who use their power to attack a given religion.

So what am I overlooking?


67 posted on 08/17/2013 4:44:48 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

There is rampant ignorance all around in that rodeo——Sharia law is not religous/religion/faith related or anything of the sort. Sharia is tribal law, or more accurately tribal custom since it always is applied the way the chief says it should be. The Soddies , for example, are great at making it up as they go. It happens that Arabs/mooslims/Persians/etc. use Sharia interchangeably but note that the largest mooslim bunch, the Indonesians, just don’t mention Sharia. Sharia is not/doesn’t have to be, an integral part of islam.

If the Okies do their homework they can get this done.


68 posted on 08/17/2013 4:51:42 PM PDT by cherokee1 (skip the names---just kick the buttz)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer

Under sharia law the judge would be home nursing her genitalia.


69 posted on 08/17/2013 4:53:43 PM PDT by SADMILLIE (r)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: stinkerpot65

This says it all: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicki_Miles-LaGrange

Folks we are screwed!


70 posted on 08/17/2013 5:07:06 PM PDT by rhubarbk (It's official, I'm suffering from Obama fatigue!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: NYer
...so Shariah law CAN be used in our courts?
71 posted on 08/17/2013 5:07:31 PM PDT by Tzimisce (The American Revolution began when the British attempted to disarm the Colonists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stinkerpot65

Picture says it all!


72 posted on 08/17/2013 5:09:19 PM PDT by rhubarbk (It's official, I'm suffering from Obama fatigue!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Hattie
That judge is a moron appointment? or elected?
I have no idea what the proposed law says specifically, but a preemptive prohibition of what is clearly a feature of a foreign culture that is totally inimical and incompatible with the National Constitution and all State Constitutions cannot be "unconstitutional."

How can this anything remotely related to the "establishment clause?"

73 posted on 08/17/2013 5:11:50 PM PDT by publius911 (Look for the Union label, then buy something else.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: unread

Here’s some links to its publication usage; I’m afraid to clink on some of the first few links. Heh.


74 posted on 08/17/2013 5:12:53 PM PDT by carriage_hill (Peace is that brief glorious moment in history, when everybody stands around reloading.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: NYer
By this judge’s interpretation, the US Constitution allows for Sheria Law to supersede US law. How the hell does that work??
75 posted on 08/17/2013 5:15:18 PM PDT by drypowder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SADMILLIE

What little would be left of them that is....

So according to this ruling all I have to do is create my own religion with a set of parallel laws and I can have them enforced. I propose Grace-ology with a law that says all statist control freaks shall be executed.......

Dumbass idiot judge just open the door to screwball cults having their own damned courts.....


76 posted on 08/17/2013 5:15:23 PM PDT by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: stinkerpot65
Clinton appointee.

Things were bad enough without having that photo posted. Dangit!

Now that I know that it's one of Holder/Sharpie/Jackass' Peeps she is beyond criticism!

< /sarc >

77 posted on 08/17/2013 5:16:14 PM PDT by publius911 (Look for the Union label, then buy something else.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: NYer
in that case, i've got a few LAWS OF MY OWN i'm going to go by!!!

we are truly screwed...

78 posted on 08/17/2013 5:18:35 PM PDT by Chode (Stand UP and Be Counted, or line up and be numbered - *DTOM* -ww- NO Pity for the LAZY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
"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,"

Sharia being all constitutional and everything.

You see, if you want to live according to Christian principles, its a violation of the famous separation of church and state clause that everyone finds hidden between the lines of the constitution. But if you want to impose Sharia, thats jake.

Outlawing sharia, that violates the separation of church and state because as we understand, under sharia, the religion *is* the state.

Corruption, thy name is Democrat.

79 posted on 08/17/2013 5:19:57 PM PDT by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stinkerpot65
prolly got knee pads on under her burka too...
80 posted on 08/17/2013 5:21:58 PM PDT by Chode (Stand UP and Be Counted, or line up and be numbered - *DTOM* -ww- NO Pity for the LAZY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 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