http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/1110/Judge_blocks_Oklahoma_ban_on_Sharia_law.html November 08, 2010
Categories:Miscellaneous.Judge blocks Oklahoma ban on Shariah law
A federal judge in Oklahoma has issued a temporary restraining order barring the state from adopting a constitutional amendment voters passed last week that forbids state courts from enforcing Islamic law, also known as Shariah.
The executive director of the local branch of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Muneer Awad, filed suit over the measure, claiming that it violates religious freedom guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
Awad said, for instance, that the measure could preclude the courts from enforcing or executing his will, since it includes references to Islamic law.
According to unofficial results, Oklahoma voters overwhelmingly adopted the measure by a vote of 70 percent in favor to 30 percent opposed. The proposal also included a ban on state courts' use of international law.
Judge Vicki Miles LaGrange's order barring certification of last week's vote is to remain in place at least through another hearing on Awad's suit set for Nov. 22, The Associated Press reported.
"The Court ... finds that the plaintiff has met the factors for this Court to enter a Temporary Restraining Order. The Court will issue an order as soon as possible," a clerk's filing in the case says.
UPDATE: This post has been updated with confirmation of the order from the court's docket.
Posted by Josh Gerstein 02:05 PM
Tags:Ballot Measures,Church-State Separation,Constitutional Rights,First Amendment,Islam,Oklahoma,Religious Freedom,Sharia Law.comments (91)post a commentpermalinkpost a comment
Name:Comments:Post Comment
Back to top
Share this Article
DiggDeliciousRedditYahooFacebookGoogleTechnorati.blog comments
Reader Comments (91)
Pages1.u fellas are not being very taaaaaaawlerent, after all, we should bow down to every other culture in the world, and let them impose their views of judicial laws over our own, just who do you people think this country belongs to? the citizens of the U.S. or all the other cultures of the world? ( i hope this judge is thrown at or impeached during the next election cycle, so she can go back to the liberal hole she crawled out of )
Posted By: mr logical | November 08, 2010 at 03:18 PMReport Abuse .WE, THE PEOPLE, can ask our elected officials to begin an impeachment hearing as soon as they return to D.C. Let's get this elitist judge out of the judiciary and into her retirement home before she does the same type of damage our beloved OBUMMER's done to our republic!
Posted By: A Libertarian in Kalamazoo | November 08, 2010 at 03:30 PMReport Abuse .See my comments on Commondreams.org on Saturday re Oklahoma's election and Sharia law.
Posted By: brauchli | November 08, 2010 at 03:34 PMReport Abuse .This judge needs to be given a lesson on the perils of rendering a decision which is totally, anti-American.
Posted By: Ticked. | November 08, 2010 at 03:35 PMReport Abuse .What happened to the concept of "prior restraint?" Let the Oklahomoa Muslims bring a case where there is a violation of their freedom of religion -- not a prospective "the sky is falling" whine.
Posted By: Curmudgeon10 | November 08, 2010 at 03:51 PMReport Abuse .So, judge rules upholding Article VI of the Constitution is UN-Constitutional!? Impeach this idiot!
Posted By: coolerking | November 08, 2010 at 03:59 PMReport Abuse .Oh, come on. The Oklahoma referendum is unconstitutional right on its face. We permit divorce courts to make endless references to Jewish law, particularly orders requiring the parties to cooperate in obtaining a "get" (a religious divorce, without which the parties cannot remarry as Jews). Many other people make reference to Christian law in their wills or other documents. Sharia law does not and cannot control in the U.S. -- but Muslims are certainly entitled to make reference to it in their personal legal lives and contracts, just as Jews and Christians refer to their own religion's laws in those contexts. Oklahoma's vicious referendum was a device to turn out racist and/or right-wing voters, nothing more.
Posted By: Ankhorite | November 08, 2010 at 04:04 PMReport Abuse .Several of the comments on here are an example of why laws are not made by redneck mobs. It doesn't matter if a majority of ignorant rednecks vote for a law, the law still has to pass Constitutional muster and if it doesn't it will be struck down. For example, if you would have had a vote in the South regarding whether or not to implement civil rights laws, the majority would have voted not to implement them and a Judge would have ruled that they had to implement them anyway. This would have been "overruling the will of the people" as right wing extremists like to say, but that is because the will of the people would have been ignorant and against our Constitution. We have a lot of actual problems in this country and we shouldn't be wasting time on ridiculous worries about sharia law taking over (Good Lord people turn off the Glen Beck and take a deep breath!).
Posted By: Sorry -- ignorant mobs don't get to win | November 08, 2010 at 04:05 PMReport Abuse .No Big Deal? I hope your daughter marries one...............on her tenth birthday.
Posted By: vjackson | November 08, 2010 at 04:15 PMReport Abuse .What a surprise: this ridiculous judge is a Clinton appointee.
Posted By: Gary | November 08, 2010 at 04:21 PMReport Abuse .Wow, didn't take long for all the crazies to come out. This law is clearly facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment, and a lawyer defending it would struggle to find an argument (except possibly standing) that wouldn't risk Rule 11 sanctions.
Posted By: anon | November 08, 2010 at 04:30 PMReport Abuse .it's hard to imagine that this kind of law is necessary. then again, if the judge blocks thiis kind of amendment, that would suggest that it is indeed necessary.
Posted By: jon | November 08, 2010 at 04:33 PMReport Abuse .Outrageous! This is the same kind of legal BS we deal with with the California State Supreme Court and The Bong-head Stoners in the 9th Circuit. The people vote, they speak clearly with that vote, and the courts disenfranchise the electorate! Enough! LaGrange needs to be impeached immediately. Perhaps this Judge should be forced to sample the following "benefits" of Sharia law. She'd break her neck to rescind her order if she were subjected to the following. She would summarily stripped of her degrees, her law license, her driver's license, her car, and her job. If she owns any property or real estate she'll be stripped of that too - as well as her wardrobe, her person-hood and her soul - noting that women don't have a soul according to the Koran. All of that would happen to her in addition to the coup de grace: The obligatory cliterodectomy. If she experienced any of these injustices, then perhaps she'd understand that this nation need not shoot for this religious fanatical insanity passing as "law."
Posted By: HOW ABOUT SOME MOSQUE-STATE SEPARATION?!!! | November 08, 2010 at 04:40 PMReport Abuse .Only under a progressive US judge ruling will there NOT be equal rights. When a US judge determines that not all people have equal rights at birth and in this nation, it is time to impeach those judges.
Posted By: So much for equal rights | November 08, 2010 at 04:53 PMReport Abuse .Islam is the new protected class in America. I hope this judge is in the city where the next attack goes off. I figured Obama would have sent Holder to file suit, but a call to the judge is just as effective.
Posted By: nookly | November 08, 2010 at 04:54 PMReport Abuse .It maybe our last Christmas this year. Mark you calandars for the Ramadan next year. This is just the begining of things to come. All in the name of the religious freedom. The problem is that Islam is not just a religion.....Get ready to lose your country.....
Posted By: BH | November 08, 2010 at 04:56 PMReport Abuse .The judge was a Democrat state senator before Democrat Bill Clinton appointed her a judge.
Posted By: Why do Liberals hate Democracy? | November 08, 2010 at 05:00 PMReport Abuse .Equal Rights? There are no equal rights in Muslim world. Women are worse than dogs to them.
Posted By: vjackson | November 08, 2010 at 05:13 PMReport Abuse .b
Posted By: lbjdem | November 08, 2010 at 05:17 PMReport Abuse .b
Posted By: lbjdem | November 08, 2010 at 05:19 PMReport Abuse .This is a curious precedence... so, if the "death tax" comes back, can I simply say as part of my religious faith, my fortunes should be turned over to my children, or it will infringe upon my First Amendment rights as a citizen? That's basically what the guy from CAIR is saying... why should Islamists have more benefits than other religions?
Posted By: TacAirlifter | November 08, 2010 at 05:34 PMReport Abuse .This judge is grasping at "what ifs." Terms of a will that require violating laws are not enforceable. If religious law violates US law which trumps? Is polygamy legal? If a will references religious doctrine that does not violate our laws who cares? If an Islamic will left someone's wives to another man that would be considered slavery and unenforceable. I guess Charlie Manson's religion should free him. What law school did this judge crawl out from.
Posted By: Paul in NH | November 08, 2010 at 05:39 PMReport Abuse .You guys aren't seeing this for what it is. No wonder this amendment passed; the GOP simply has to play to the fears of its base and they can get anything passed. The Constitution is already crystal clear on religion and politics. In fact, the implied seperation of church and state is found in the very first amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Therefore there is absolutly no reason to suggest that the Oklahoma courts be discouraged from "considering or using Sharia Law", they couldn't constitutionally do so anyways. With the growing Islamophobia movement in America, this amendment was nothing more than another Republican's attempt to convince the masses that Muslims are our enemy, and that we should return to the "Judeo-Christian principles" they seem to think we were founded upon. I recommend looking up what Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, and the other founding fathers ACTUALLY said about religion and its place in Government. In short, this amendment is unnecessary and serves no purpose other than isolating and pointing fingers at an unpopular minority in America. And it further proves that Republicans really have no clue that a secular state with a godless constitution is ACTUALLY what protects their freedom to worship/believe any way they choose.
Posted By: Andy Dixon | November 08, 2010 at 05:46 PMReport Abuse .You guys aren't seeing this for what it is. No wonder this amendment passed; the GOP simply has to play to the fears of its base and they can get anything passed. The Constitution is already crystal clear on religion and politics. In fact, the implied seperation of church and state is found in the very first amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Therefore there is absolutly no reason to suggest that the Oklahoma courts be discouraged from "considering or using Sharia Law", they couldn't constitutionally do so anyways. With the growing Islamophobia movement in America, this amendment was nothing more than another Republican's attempt to convince the masses that Muslims are our enemy, and that we should return to the "Judeo-Christian principles" they seem to think we were founded upon. I recommend looking up what Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, and the other founding fathers ACTUALLY said about religion and its place in Government. In short, this amendment is unnecessary and serves no purpose other than isolating and pointing fingers at an unpopular minority in America. And it further proves that Republicans really have no clue that a secular state with a godless constitution is ACTUALLY what protects their freedom to worship/believe any way they choose.
Posted By: Andy Dixon | November 08, 2010 at 05:47 PMReport Abuse .When would US Courts ever enforce a body a law that has no existence in statute or precedent in this country? This is paranoia -- aggravated by politics, no doubt.
Posted By: John Frederick | November 08, 2010 at 05:51 PMReport Abuse .Another case of courts overruling the will of the people. Is this democracy or oligarcy. When the vote of the majority is ignored violence is invited. The people of this country have shed much blood and given many of their sons for government of the people, for the people and by the people. We must do all we can to prevent actions which deprive citizens of hope for peacefully working their will drive them to desperate measures.
Posted By: phil from saginaw | November 08, 2010 at 05:58 PMReport Abuse .It does seem to me that, as written, Oklahoma would risk invalidating all Muslim marriages. That would clearly be an unconstitutional law, and if the text of it is determined to do that, it would be a slam-dunk to overturn. International law is trickier - there I suspect the law, as written, violates federal supremacy, as it includes treaties as a source of international law. This would mean that, for instance, violation of treaties the US has ratified would presumably be legal in Oklahoma. Again, this is clearly not something Oklahoma has the authority to do. It would also presumably invalidate any marriages in Oklahoma that were performed in foreign countries. And I can't wait to see how the farm belt responds to the invalidation of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture.
Posted By: Phil Sandifer | November 08, 2010 at 06:06 PMReport Abuse .Might want to ask the citizens of England and a few other European Countries if the citizens of Oklahoma are paranoid over nothing.
Posted By: chuck | November 08, 2010 at 06:39 PMReport Abuse .The level of arrogance this judge has to usurp the will of the people. Despite the fact that some 70% of Oklahomans voted in favor of this bill, this judge decided that the will of the people is irrelevant.
Posted By: The level of arrogance this judge has to usurp the will of the people. Despite the fact that some 7 | November 08, 2010 at 06:42 PMReport Abuse .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. VS Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Interesting question.....supremacy of the US constitution vs individual sharia application.
Posted By: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and a | November 08, 2010 at 07:05 PMReport Abuse .It's outrageous that the Muslims plead for tolerance when they don't extend anyone else the same courtesy. Moreover, the Constitution's provision for religious freedom applies to Christianity, not to Islam.
Posted By: rusty halo | November 08, 2010 at 07:05 PMReport Abuse .he should tell them all to go to hell and go back where they came from. If they love their laws so well why come here. We love our way and don't want them here. They are nothing but trouble like the bamster.
Posted By: casperbird | November 08, 2010 at 07:24 PMReport Abuse ."....This is a nonissue. Oklahoma should worry more about that fact that it has inferior public schools, the most mentally disabled people in the country." .... i doubt if your statement is anywhere near true, although there is NO doubt that this judge is mentally diseased....
Posted By: "....This is a nonissue. Oklahoma should worry more about that fact that it has inferior public scho | November 08, 2010 at 07:24 PMReport Abuse .They can go back to the Middle East if they want Sharia Law. If they have a WILL (I cannot believe they call it a will anyway) send the will back to the courts in the Middle east where they came from and let the courts there read the will and do what ever Islamic Law permits them to there. Americans who know the DANGER of allowing this kind of law here in America will be totally tee off - I know I will. Tired of these people coming here to change our Constitution, Laws, Traditions etc etc... Adopt American Laws and culture or go back to where you came from. Period!
Posted By: NOETICNJ | November 08, 2010 at 07:27 PMReport Abuse .A thorough cleanup of the vermin-infested courts is long overdue. Once we get the White House back, we need to start removing activist judges who endanger our Constitution. These judges are abusive and a clear and present danger to our sovereignty.
Posted By: AZdude | November 08, 2010 at 07:28 PMReport Abuse .black socialist bigot judge.....as though that's a surprise.....this will all be over soon. suibne
Posted By: suibne | November 08, 2010 at 07:36 PMReport Abuse .""....This is a nonissue. Oklahoma should worry more about that fact that it has inferior public schools, the most mentally disabled people in the country." .... i doubt if your statement is anywhere near true, although there is NO doubt that this judge is mentally diseased...." --------------- It is. You should try looking up FACTS. They are useful. I used to lived in Oklahoma for three long years and the facts noted above were in the newspaper there. I was happy to leave. What an incredibly backward place. Filled with people like you who cannot even distinguish between a Judge doing her job by interpreting our laws and our Constitution and people making emotional, factless, and fear-based voting decisions. Mob rule does not trump our Constitution (thank goodness).
