A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order on a recently passed Oklahoma measure forbidding the use of Islamic law or Shariah in state courts, noting that the measure discriminates against a particular religion. -db
Politico
November 9, 2010
By Josh Gerstein
A federal judge is detailing her reasons for her decision Monday barring the state of Oklahoma from putting into effect a newly passed ballot measure that would bar the use of Islamic law, also known as Shariah, in the state’s courts.
In a nine-page order released Tuesday, U.S. District Court Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange said she was persuaded that a constitutional amendment known as State Question 755 seemed to have a legally improper religious purpose and posed a threat to violate the rights of Muslims like Muneer Awad, the Oklahoma resident who filed a lawsuit over the measure. The ballot measure passed last week by a vote of 70 percent to 30 percent.
“The Court finds that plaintiff has made a preliminary showing that State Question 755’s amendment does not have a secular purpose, that its primary purpose inhibits religion, and that it fosters an excessive government entanglement with religion,” Miles-LaGrange wrote. She noted Awad’s arguments that one of the authors of the measure, state Rep. Rex Duncan, described the purpose of the amendment as making sure that Oklahoma courts were not used to undermine what Duncan has called the “Judeo-Christian” founding principles of the country. Duncan also described Shariah law as a “looming threat” to the U.S., the judge noted.
Miles-LaGrange also noted Awad’s arguments that the validity of various Muslim religious texts is not acknowledged by all Muslims and that “consequently, to comply with the amendment, state courts will be faced with determining the content of Sharia law.”
The judge also appeared to credit Awad’s arguments that the law would place a special burden on Muslims, since state courts are not prohibited from contracts and other documents that might incorporate religious law from other religious traditions. In particular, she noted, Awad argued that “the amendment would prevent plaintiff’s will from being fully probated by a state court in Oklahoma.”
“The Court finds that plaintiff has made a preliminary showing that State Question 755’s amendment is not facially neutral, discriminates against a specific religious belief, and prohibits conduct because it is undertaken for religious reasons,” Miles La-Grange wrote. “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.”
Her temporary restraining order is in effect through another hearing in the case set for Nov. 22.
Copyright 2010 Capitol News Company LLC FAC Content Use Policy